
PRELATICAL USURPATION 

EXPOSED: 

, oR » ... * 

A VJiPlCATION- • 

> of 
THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF JURISDICTION 

• IN 

THE RIGHT REV. SAMUEL PROVOOST, &c. 

WITH AN APPENDIX, 

RELATING TO THE CASE 
OF 

REVEREND CAVE JONES. 



iv 



PRELATICAL USURPATION 



EXPOSED : 



OR, 



A VINDICATION 



OF 



THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF JURISDICTION 



THE RIGHT REV. SAMUEL PROVOOST, 



DIOCESAN EISKOP OF THE P. E. CHURCH 

IN THE STATE OF NEW-YORK. 

WITH AN APPENDIX, 

RELATING TO THE CASE 
OF 

THE REV. CAVE JONES. 




V 

BT VINDEX. 



** The servant is not greater than his lord." St. 'fol it. 

"A Bishop must be blameless.... of good behaviour.. ..not a brawler....not a navicc... 
moreover he must have a good report of them which are without, lest he fall into 
reproach." st - P a "-d. 

•' If principles be falfe and doctrines unwarrantable, no apology can make them 
right; if founded in truth and rectitude, no censure from others can make them 
wrong." Blacksttne. 

,„.„.„.... Si quid novisti rectius istis, 

S Candidmimpertii si non, his utere mecum. Uoracn 



1812. 



TO THE RIGHT REVEREND 

THE BISHOPS, 

THE 

REVEREND THE CLERGY, 

AND THE LAY-MEMBERS OF THE 

PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

IN THE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ; 

BUT MORE PARTICULARLY TO THE 

MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL CONVENTION 

WHICH SAT AT TRENTON IN 1801. 

AND TO THOSE VvHO COMPOSED THE LATE MEICTIXC* 

AT MECHANIC HALL : 

TO THE ENEMIES OF 

ECCLESIASTICAL INTOLERANCE, TYRANNY, 
AND OPPRESSION ; 

AND TO THE 

FRIENDS OF ORDER, JUSTICE, HUMANITY, 
AND EQUAL LAWS, 

HIE FOZ-kOWIXG PASES ARE MOST UESPECTfUIiL" INSCRIBE D »Y 

THE AUTHOR. 



PRELATICAL USURPATION 



EXPOSED, &c. 



THE circumstance which gave birth to the pre- 
sent production was this : — A gentleman, who is a 
warm advocate for Dr. Hobart, lately observed in my 
hearing, that he gave up the point of the validity of 
his favourite's consecration ; that he was dissatisfied 
with Dr. Bowden's reasoning on the subject ; that it 
would redound more to the honour of the church to 
have the ceremony repeated ; and that the few episco- 
pal acts, performed by Dr. H. in his defective charac- 
ter, ought to be rectified at the same time. A person 
present replied — That he much doubted whether the 
special convention, which elected Dr. Hobart, was le- 
gally called ; and whether, under existing circumstan- 
ces, it would be adviseable to choose him as an assist- 
ant bishop. This reply brought up the subject of Dr. 
Provoost's resignation, and of the authority of Dr. B. 
Moore to act as diocesan. The gentleman refused to 
engage in the discussion of those topics, and left the 
room with this declaration — that no reasonable man, 
who had read Dr. Hobart's Statement, could retain the 
shadow of a doubt on this subject. 

Now, I have read that Statement with great atten- 
tion ; I hope that I do not bear the character of an 
unreasonable man on ordinary occasions ; and yet I 



C 4 ] 

differ widely from this positive gentleman : for I not 
only hesitate to recognize Dr. B. Moore as the di ce- 
san bishop, but I have actually been reasoned into the 
persuasion, that Dr. Provoost is the centre of all eccle- 
siastical authority in this diocese. There are several 
points of view in which I have looked at this subject, 
and the result of every examination has been invaria- 
bly the same ; in the language of Dr. Hobart's zealous 
friend, not the shadow of a doubt remains on my mind. 

No man, who is the least acquainted with human 
nature, can be at a loss to account for this contrariety 
of opinion. Let any two persons, actuated by strong 
dissimilar prejudices, proceed to the discussion of any 
subject ; and it is more than probable, that both will 
rise from the debate, more strongly confirmed in their 
opposite sentiments. Prejudices are temporary dis- 
eases of the mind, on which they operate as jaundice 
and calenture on the body : the very same object will 
appear to one patient to be yellow, to the other green. 

Habit, also, has no small influence in warping the 
judgment : like a bias in the side of a bowl, it cannot 
fail to produce a deviation from a straight line. If a 
man habituate himself to regard only one side of a 
question, he will turn a deaf ear to every argument in 
favour of the other ; and every symptom of imparti- 
ality he will denounce as a proof of heterodoxy. Nay, 
there are not wanting instances of persons, on whom 
habit has produced the effect of persuading them, that 
the falsehoods which they have repeated a thousand 
times, are no longer falsehoods. 

Conscious of being exposed, in common with others, 
to these effects of human infirmity, I approach the sub- 
ject of the following pages with as complete a dives- 
ture of preference and prejudice, as I am able to com- 
mand. How well I may succeed in investigating it 
with impartiality, I leave it to others to judge : I have 
only to assure the reader, that I have not the least con- 
nection with either Dr. Hobart or Mr. Jones ; and ihat 
therefore 

•' Tiros Tyviusque mihi nullo discrimine ajctnr.''' 



£ 5 ] 

It will be seen, however, that the person, from whom 
1 differ more especially, is Dr. Hobart; and therefore 
it becomes necessary, in order to pave the way for the 
admission of truth, that I endeavour to remove every 
prepossession in favour of that gentleman, which may 
exist in the reader's mind. This necessity justifies 
me in saying, that in all Dr. Hobart's controversial 
writings, and particularly in his Statement, 1 observe a 
display of art peculiarly his own. He is, in this re- 
spect, " sui generis." His art lies in choosing ground 
on which it is not easy to dispute with him, and where 
ignorance finds a refuge from the regular attacks of 
reason and logic. Like the fabled Proteus, when you 
have grasped him by the mane in the form of a Lion, 
the next moment you feel him slipping thro' your fin- 
gers in the shape of an eel : or, like the cuttle fish, by 
muddying the stream through which he glides, he 
eludes the pursuit of his enemy ; or, like the notorious 
barber Baldwin,* when a bungling operation has ex- 
posed him to derision and threatened chastisement, he 
pulls out his powder-bag, fills the room with dust, and 
while the astonished company are clearing their eyes, 
their noses and throats, he vanishes from their rest nt- 
ment. Look at the very face of his Statement, and you 
at once discover that it wears a mask. A piece under 
the signature of" Commentator," had intimated to the 
public, that a number of persons were combining to 
prepare an answer to Mr. Jones's pamphlet. When 
this intimation was first given, the Statement was rea- 
dy for publication, and was obviously intended to ap- 
pear anonymously; for the tide-page does not exhibit 
the author's name. An additional sheet was therefore 
prefixed, with an advertisement ; and if almost every 
word in that advertisement does not speak prevarica- 
tion, then have I yet to learn what prevarication is. 
If the writer means any thing, he means to say that he 
had no aid in writing his book ; and any plain, honest 
man would have felt no difficulty in saying so, if it 
were true. But Dr. H. tells us, that he had '* resolved 

* See the anecdote recorded in the Christian's Magazine. 



[6] 



to deprive himself of the benefit of aid : " he does not, 
however, tell us whether he adhered to that resolution, 
or not. He informs us, that he "deprived himself of 
aid on the subjects discussed in this statement:" but 
we are left to conjecture whether he had not some aid 
in the discussion itself. He " deprived himself of that 
aid, of which, under different circumstances, he would 
have availed himself :" but this may imply that he 
had. .some aid, and that under other circumstances 
he would have availed himself of more. One person 
only, saw it in manuscript : but how many saw it in 
proof, and how many alterations and corrections did 
it undergo in that state ? 1 repeat it, that any other 
writer than Dr. H. would have experienced no difficulty 
in saying, without circumlocution or ambiguity of ex- 
pression, what that gentleman wishes us to believe — 
that he had the assistance of no one in writing his 
Statement. 

But this jesuitical method of writing must be allow- 
ed to possess no trifling advantages, as Dr. H. has of- 
ten experienced. In his controversy with the dissen- 
ters, whenever he was detected in advancing a weak ar- 
gument or a bold falsehood, he had only to say — my 
opponents have misunderstood me, I did not mean so — 
and his polemical antagonist found, to his surprise, that 
the supposed giant was nothing more than a man of 
straw. It is for this reason that I feel myself justified 
in exposing his arts of intentional ambiguity and pre- 
varication. It is my duty, as his opponent on this oc- 
casion, to caution our readers against mistaking the 
shallows of his subtlety for the depths of reasoning. 
An air of plausibility, a substitution of sound for sense, 
an ostentatious manner without meaning, bold asser- 
tion unsupported by proof, an occasional efflorescence 
of zeal, these are the characteristics of Dr. H's. contro- 
versial writings. Of his sophistical arts I have here 
given a specimen, drawn from the first six lines of the 
advertisement to his Statement ; and should I find time 
and inclination, I may possibly go through the whole 
©f the Statement itself, in the same manner. I shall 



C 7 ] 

thus give myself an opportunity of shewing, that all 
that comes from Dr. H. is not gospel; and that 
« All, is not Gold, that glitters to the eye " 

In the mean time I advance to the discussion of the 
proposed inquiry — Who is the bish p of this diocese- ? 

To the state-convention which sat in 1801, Dr. Pro- 
voost verbally tendered the resignation of his office, as 
bishop of the P E Church in the state of New- York. 
Whether it be material to the point or not, I am autho- 
rised to state (and I do it without fear of contradiction) 
that the thought of resigning his jurisdictional author- 
ity alone never entered the bishop's head ; that the term 
jurisdiction* was never mentioned by either himself or 
any other person, at the time of his proposed resig- 
nation ; and that the word was , first employed, at the 
insidious instigation of Dr. Hobart, in the bishop's let- 
ter to his assembled peers at Trenton. But wh at is 
written, is written ; and we will endeavour to confine 
ourselves to authentic documents, and to such facts as 
are notorious and cannot be contradicted. 

What then said the state- convention in reply to this 
proffered resignation ? — " They regret that he should 
have judged himself under the necessity of quitting the 
exercise of the episcopal office, and those solemn and 
important duties which are connected with it." This 
is the only answer made by the convention to the bish- 
op's proposal to resign. But does the language here 
employed amount to an acceptance of his resignation ? 
If I am allowed to understand the most common terms 
in my own mother tongue, an expression of regret that 
a man should judge himself under the necessity of re- 
signing his office, conveys an indirect charge of errone- 
ous judgment. Without stating what I have reason 
to know is the fact, the very words of the resolution to 
which I now refer (and which is the only resolution 
immediately connected with the subject) plainly imply, 

* The word "jurisdiction," in the preamble to the resolution respecting 
the bishop's tender of resignation, was not used in the original eniry on the 
minutes of the convention ; it was interpolated afterwards, to answer a 
certain purpose, 



C 8 ] 

that the convention considered the bishop as being actu- 
ated by motives which they could not approve : they 
saw not the necessity, which he urged as a plea for re- 
signing his office ; and they regretted that he saw not 
as they did. Fur the truth of this part of my statement, 
I confidently appeal to every clerical and lay member 
who sat in the convention, when the resolution was 
passed. 

Whatever may be thought of Mr. Jones' talents as a 
writer, it must be acknowledged that he has treated the 
subject of bishop Provoost's resignation in a perspicu- 
ous manner. It wiii be seen, however, that I differ from 
him where he asserts — -" that it was not his episcopal 
quality or character which bishop P. thought of resign- 
ing, or proffered to resign." Every member of that 
convention, as well as the right reverend gentleman 
himself, mast bear witness, that it zvas his episcopal 
character, his office as bishop, without any reservation^ 
that he proposed to lay down. It seems to me to be 
quite as essential to the present enquiry, to ascertain 
what the bishop offered to resign, as \\ hether he ever 
resigned at all : and the very words of the resolution 
above mentioned, prove, that it was his episcopal office. 
Whether the bishop was correct in his conjecture that 
he could resign his office in its whole extent, is ano- 
ther question, to be determined elsewhere. 

Dr. Hobart himself admits the fact, that it was " his 
episcopal office" that bishop Provoost tendered to the 
convention. And will it be said that the convention 
were competent to take back an office, to resume a 
commission, which they were incompetent to grant ? 
Did the bishop receive his commission from the con- 
vention of New- York ? I perfectly agree with Dr. Ho- 
bart, that " a bishop receives his commission, his spi- 
ritual functions, from the bishops who consecrate 
him." If it should be said that any state convention 
can, independently of the house of bishops, confer the 
office of a bishop, then it inevitably follows, that a pres- 
byterian minister is, at this very moment, bishop of 
the P. E. Church in the diocese of New- Jersey. The 



[9] 

plain truth is, that after our convention had obliquely 
expressed their disapprobation of Dr. Provoost's inten- 
tion, they knew that they had nothing more to do in 
the affair : they could no more accept his resignation 
of office, and thereby vacate his commission, than they 
could compel him to retain his office, and continue to 
discharge its duties : to do either, was equally out of 
the sphere of their authority and power. 

Bishop Provoost tendered the resignation of his 
office, because he judged himself under the necessity 
of so doing. Buc is a man who holds a commission, 
in either a civil or military capacity, permitted to be 
the sole judge of the necessity of resigning? And does 
a tender of resignation amount to an actual resigna- 
tion? Wherein lies the difference between the case of 
a civil or military officer, and the case now before us ? 
The only distinction which I can discern is, that a mi- 
litary or civil officer may be allowed to lay down his 
commission ; but it is almost universally agreed that 
a bishop can not. While I bow to the ground in ad- 
miration of the profound incomprehensibility of Dr. 
White's writings, I can plainly enough discover in his 
letter published in the Statement, that he never speaks 
of Dr. P's. resignation, but only of his proffer to re- 
sign, and of his profession to have resigned : nay, he 
admits, in language as plain as can be expected from 
him, that Dr. Provoost is the bishop of the diocese, 
although the admission intimates a difference between 
the office and the duties appertaining to it. To save 
the reader the trouble of turning to the letter itself, 
here follows the passage to which I now allude — The 
instrument (the decision of the house of bishops) 
makes a distinction between bishop Provoost's being 
the bishop of the diocese, and his discharging of its 
duties ; the latter of which it supposes to depend on 
circumstances." Were I permitted to decipher this 
passage, it would be done thus: — The house of bi- 
shops did, in the instrument of their decision, admit Dr. 
P. to be the bishop of the diocese ; but as that gentle- 
man had declined the discharge of the duties of his of* 



[ 10] 



lice, the circumstance of his declension rendered it 
necessary, in the judgment of the house, to provide 
for the discharge of those duties in some other way : 
viz. by giving the diocesan an assistant. Dr. White 
and his brethren have doubtless made a very proper 
distinction. 

It is well known that in this state (and I presume 
that the practice is the same every where else) a resig- 
nation to the council of appointment is totally ineffec- 
tual, until the officer has received an official notice that 
his resignation has been accepted ; and that such no- 
tice is always given by a supersedeas, or formal instru- 
ment directed to the party resigning. Until such in- 
strument be received, whatever necessity may be urged 
for immediate resignation, any civil officer would be 
amenable for neglect of duty. Again; let it be supposed 
that the commander of an American army, judging 
himself to be under the necessity of resigning, should, 
on the eve of an important battle, make a tender of his 
commission by letter to the president. Would this 
proffered resignation exempt the commander from 
proceedings against him for a breach of his duty ? The 
fact is, that a resignation, in order to be effectual, must 
have the concurrence of two parties ; of the party re- 
signing, and of the parly to whom the resignation is to 
bemr.de: 1 or, in whatever terms the offer of resig- 
nation be couched, whatever necessity be urged for re- 
signing, can it be effectual until it is accepted, and 
iiiitil the party making it has notice of the acceptance. 
The quesiion therefore is, not whether Dr. P. offered 
to resign, but whether his offer was accepted, and notice 
of acceptance was given to him. So far from it, altho' 
the convention directed — " that a copy of this resolu- 
tion be transmitted to bishop Provoost by the secretary 
of the convention" Mr. Hobart, yet the copy has not 
reached him to this very hour : the sickly prayer, con- 
tained in the resolution alluded to, died on the lips of 
the secretary ; and whin the vote for transmitting to 
the bishop a copy of it was recorded, there was an end 
of the idle ceremony. I repeat the question ; was Dr. 



[ 11 ] 



P's. offer of resignation accepted, and was notice of 
acceptance given to him ? In vain do I look for an 
answer to this enquiry in the journals of that conven- 
tion : not a word indicative of acceptance or notification 
of acceptance can I find: "the onh part of the whole 
proceeding (to adopt the expression of Mr. Joi;e^) which 
looks like acceptance, is negatived and rejected ;" and 
the only part which regarded notification of any thing, 
was never carried into effect. Will it he said — that 
although there was no formal minute made of their ac- 
ceptance, yet the convention evidently acquiesced in 
the proposed resignation ? The doctrine of tacit ac- 
quiescence seems now to be exploded : " there is not 
the shadow of evidence (as Dr. Hobart would say) that 
the resignation received the concurrence of the con. 
vention:" nothing but the most positive and direct 
evidence will suffice. From all that hitherto appears, 
although Dr. Provoost tendered the resignation of his 
office, there is nothing like direct proof, there is noth- 
ing like satisfactory evidence, that it was accepted : 
"and this (were I disposed to adopt the language of Dr. 
Hobari) " this should put an end to the argument." 

But while it is admitted that Dr. Provost made an 
offer to resign his office, I contend that it could riot be 
legally accepted, on account of the manner in which it 
was made. The resignation of a bishop is an act of no 
small importance ; and even were such an act admiss- 
ible by the laws and usages of the church (which is de- 
nied by the highest authority) still it ought tp be ac- 
companied by all the requisite solemnities and forms. 
Whoever will take the tiouble to inform himself on 
this subject will find, that a verbal resignation must be 
nugatory ; or (to use the language of the house of bish- 
ops) ineffectual. The reason of this is connected with 
the position already advanced, thai there must be an 
acceptance and an official notice of the acceptance. But 
when a resignation is made verbally, the acceptance 
may be verba!, the notice of the acceptance may also 
be verbal, and thus there mav be no authentic record 



[ m ] 



cf so important a transaction. This appears to have 
been the case in respect to bishop Provoost : but the 
resignation of a bishop is too momentous to be thus 
informally tendered and admitted. Instead of multi- 
plying authorities to bear en this point, I shall content 
myself with giving to the reader a single short extract 
from the celebrated Du Pin : — " A bishop, when seiz- 
ed with a disease which hinders him from performing 
his office, must not be deposed, but one must be given 
him for his assistance : he must continue in his station : 
if he desires to retire, yet they ought not to proceed to 
the election of another bishop, until he has given his 
demission in writing.'''' Much as might be collected 
in my favour from this passage, I shall leaA'e it to the 
reader's reflection with only this remark : if the esta- 
blished practice cf the church requires that a bishop, 
desirous of retiring from those official duties which he 
is no longer able to discharge satisfactorily, must give 
his resignation in writing j then a verbal tender to re- 
sign must be ineffectual, and not even a formal accept- 
ance can be valid. And here let it be remembered 
that, in the estimation of Bishop White, " the very ex- 
istence of the church in this country, depends on an 
undeviating adherence to the principles which she has 
inherited from the parent church." 

Admitting that Dr. Provoost's offer to resign a- 
mounted to an actual resignation, and even that his 
resignation had been received in a formal manner by 
the convention ; still I am persuaded that the act was 
invalid or ineffectual, because "resignation can be 
made to a superior only." Dr. Burns's Eccles: Justice 
is a common book, and may readily be referred to by 
any one who wishes to examine the fairness of my quo- 
tation : "This is a maxim," says he (alluding to the as- 
sertion, that resignation can be made to a superior only) 
" this is a maxim in the temporal law, and is applied 
by lord Coke to the ecclesiasticallaw : he says — there- 
fore a bishop cannot resign to the dean and chapter, 
but it must be to the metropolitan from whom he re- 



[ 13 ] 



ccived confirmation* and consecration." Is the state 
convention, without a bishops superior to the bishop of 
the diocese ? If they elected him to be their spiritual 
head, did he also receive confirmation and consecration 
from them ? How then, agreeably to lord Coke's in- 
terpretation of the law, how could they accept his 
resignation ? 

I have proposed this point interrogatively, although 
I should have been justified in laying it down authori- 
tatively. " No resignation can be valid, till accepted 
by the proper ordinary : that is, no person appointed to 
a cure of souls can quit the cure, or discharge himself 
of it, but upon good motives to be approved by the su- 
perior who committed it to him. Resignation must be 
made to the person who hath power to admit it. This 
is the law, as well of the state, as of the church." (Gib- 
son's code.) " A dean and chapter are the council of 
the bishop, to assist him with their advice in affairs of 
religion, Sec. The dean and chapter are, as was be- 
fore observed, the nominal electors of a bishop. The 
bishop is their ordinary and immediate superior, and 
has the power of correcting their excesses and enor- 
mities:" the resignation of a priest " is of no avail, 
till accepted by the ordinary, J into whose hands the 
resignation must be made. All resignations must be 

* By the term " confirm ation'' is to be understood an act of the metro- 
politan or afch-bisbop, who, whenever a new bishop is elected, examines 
whether the bishop elect be duly qualified for the station, and whether the 
election was duly made ; in which case he confirms the proceedings, and 
commits to the new bishop the administration of the spiritualities. See 
B. Gibson's codex, vol. ii. 

t Dr. Hobart tells us that on his own motion it was resolved — "That 
this convention cannot with propriety set upon the memorial from Christ 
church, while this church is destitute of a bishop." The inference is, that 
the convention could not, while without a bishop, proceed to perform any 
valid act. And yet this veiy resolution is an set. And, what is more 
wonderful and more inconsistent still, all their proceedings, in relation to 
Dr. B. Moore, were subsequent to this resolution; and took place when, 
according to this reasening, any act of theirs would be invalid. Does not 
this prove rather more than the gentleman would wish] Does he indeed 
mean to insinuate that Dr. B. Moore was illegally elected to his present 
office ? 

f The bishop is generally called the ordinary. 'Bbckslone.) 



C 14 ] 



made to some superior : therefore a bishop must re- 
sign to his metropolitan : an arch-bishop can resign to 
none but the king himself." (Sir W. Blackstone.) 

Should it be urged that, according to this maxim, a 
bishop can never resign after the decease of the prelate 
who confirmed and consecrated him, I take the liberty 
of thinking that no such conclusion is cleducible from 
the premises. Lord Coke does not allude to the per- 
son, but to the office of the metropolitan : he means to 
say that a bishop cannot resign to any man, or to any 
body of men in his own diocese, inferior to the bishop 
in point of ecclesiastical authority. In Great Britain the 
law is understood to imply, that a bishop must not re- 
sign except to his metrepolitan, who alone (ecclesiasti- 
cally speaking) is regaided as his superior. This is 
an ecclesiastical law, or a law of the church. Apply 
this law of the church to this country, and its obvious 
meaning is — that a bishop cannot resign except to the 
house of bishops, which is the only ecclesiastical bedy 
possessing either power or authority supeiior to his 
own. One bishop cannot resign to another ; because 
neither is superior to the other : neither can a bishop 
resign to any number of bishops accidentally assem- 
bled: his resignation, in order to be effectual, muht be 
made to the house of bishops constitutionally assembled 
in convention 

Will it be said that Dr. Provoost has actually sent 
his resignation to that venerable body ? I deny the 
fact ; I demand the proof. If the letter sent to the pre- 
sident of that house while in session at Trenton, and 
which is recorded on their journal, be adduced as a 
proof; I assert on the testimony of Dr. White himself, 
that the letter was regarded by the assembled bishops 
" merely as a communication of a fact," said to have 
taken place some time before, in New-York, 

Will it be said that the state convention were supe- 
rior to Dr. Provoost, because they conferred on him 
the privilege of exercising jurisdictional authority over 
this diocese ? Whether they were, or were not, supe- 
rior to him at the time when this privilege was con- 



[ 15 ] 



ferred, I shall not waste time in discussing : for I pre- 
sume it to be an admitted fact, that they were no lon- 
ger his superiors after the'i, election had been confirmed 
by episcopal authority, and after he had been consecrat. 
ed to preside over them. The privilege of exercising 
jurisdictional authority, in any diorese in this country, 
emanates from the state-convention : but confirmation 
and consecration must issue from a superior source. 

Our state conventions exactly answer to the dean and 
chapter in the dioceses of G. Britain : like them, they are 
"the nominal electors of a bishop like them, they are 
"the bishop's council, to assist him with their advice 
in affairs of religion like them, they are inferior to the 
bishop in point of authority ; and like them, they can- 
not therefore accept their bishop's resignation. My 
conclusion is, that as inferiors, or even as equals, the 
state-convention could not legally accept the resig- 
nation (if Dr. Provoost. 

As I conceive this to be a point of no small moment, 
and am desirous that it should have its due weight in 
the discussion, I will endeavour to illustrate it by a 
familiar comparison. Let it be supposed that a colo- 
nel has permission to raise a regiment for the service 
of the United States, with the privilege of nominating 
all the subordinate officers ; who are, however, to be 
commissioned by the president. An officer thus nom- 
inated and commissioned, becomes disgusted with 
certain acts of his colonel, to whom he tenders his 
commission. The colonel accepts it, and sends it (as it 
is his duty to d< ) to the president; with the nomina- 
tion of another to the supposed vacancy. Is this ten- 
der or presentation of the officer's commission to the 
colonel an effectual resignation ? Does it not still de- 
pend on a superior personage, whether the officer shall 
be permitted to quit the service, or not? Again, let 
it be supposed that the vestry of St. George's church 
have chosen their rector. The next step is, to obtain 
the bishop's order for his induction. When canoni- 
cally inducted, can he so resign to the vestry as effec- 
tually to dissolve the connection between the two par- 
ties, without the sanction of authority from some one 



L is ] 



superior to them both ? Is not, in other words, is not 
the approbation of the bishop, under whom the rector 
was inducted, necessary to the dissolution of the con- 
nection? Thus, when a state- convention have chosen a 
bishop to preside over them, neither can he resign his 
charge to them, nor can they dispossess him of his 
jurisdiction, without the concurrence of the house of 
bishops, in whom alone a superior authority is lodged. 

The state of the case then, so far as we have now ex- 
amined it, is this : — Dr. Provoost offered to resign to 
the state-convention his office as bishop of this diocese : 
but this offer was made in an irregular, informal, illegal 
manner ; because it was made verbally, and because it 
was made to a body of men incompetent to act upon it, 
being destitute of that ecclesiastical superiority which 
is necessary to a valid acceptance : they therefore did 
no more than express their regret that such an offer 
had been made, and they negatived a proposed resolu- 
tion to accept it. Thy did wisely ; they left the mat- 
ter to their superiors. It follows that Bishop Provoost 
did not, because he could not, resign to the state-con- 
vention. 

But it will be said that this conclusion is directly at 
variance with the bishop's own declaration, in his letter 
to Dr. White, wherein he acknowledges that he actually 
had resigned. I grant it ; I readily admit the truth and 
propriety of this inference : 

" Amicus Plato, ssd magis arnica Veritas." 
But my admission arraigns neither the bishop's vera- 
city, nor the sincerity of his intention when he offered 
to resign. The good bishop judged erroneously, when 
he made that acknowledgment : he was sincerely desir- 
ous of resigning, and he sincerely believed that his re- 

* I am anthorised to say, that these are the sentiments of Dr. Provoost 
himself. When he offered his resignation to the stale-convention, he was 
persuaded that his ofTer still had to receive the concurrence of the bish- 
ops, in order to obtain validity to the act. It was in consequence of this 
persuasion that lie addressed the house of bishops assembled at Trenton. 
Had he conceived that his offer to resign to the state-convention amounted 
to a complete and valid resignation, he would have given himself no fur- 
ther concern. 



C 17 ] 

signation had been formally made, and as formally ac- 
cepted ; so far as it depended on himself and the conven- 
tion. He therefore did not scruple to communicate to 
his friend what he supposed to be the fact. I humbly 
trust that my Rt. Rev. Diocesan will not attribute to 
me any want of regard for his person, or of resp-ct for 
his office, when I admit that upon this occasion he was 
guilty of a venial error. Were Mr. Gelston, the col- 
lector of our port, to judge himself under the necessity 
of resigning his office ; and were he in consequence to 
send his resignation to the secretary of the treasury ; 
might he not, without being exposed to any dishonor- 
able charge, inform a friend that he had resigned his 
commission, although it should afterwards appear that 
he was mistaken, and that his resignation had not been 
accepted? If a single instance of erroneous judgment 
be deemed unpardonable in Dr. Provoost ; if, under 
the pressure of heavy afflictions, he judged himself un- 
der the necessity of resigning his office ; and if he 
erred in supposing that such a resignation would not 
be incompatible with ecclesiastical usage ; if this error 
be unpardonable in him, what are we to think of the 
ignorance, the shameful ignorance of two men (both of 
whom are avowed candidates for mitres) who have 
published to the world — " that there is not an instance, 
in the whole history of the christian church, of the res- 
toration of a degraded clergyman ?■' If this was, in- 
deed, a proof of their ignorance, what are we to think 
of their effrontery, in attributing their attempt at decep- 
tion to the misrepresentations of Dr. White ? " Ver- 
bum sat sapienti." 

Having thus, for the present, closed our concerns 
with the state convention, we now proceed to the gen- 
eral convention subsequently assembled at Trenton. 

A letter is read to the upper house, informing them 
that the bishop of this diocese had lately resigned to 
the state convention his jurisdiction, &c. Struck with 
the intelligence of this fact, which appears to this ven- 
erable body to be unprecedented, unauthorised, and 
opposed to the established usage of the church, they 



[ 18 ] 

demand a conference with the clerical deputies from 
the abdicated diocese. They inform these gentle- 
men that, in their opinion, a bishop cannot resign his 
jurisdiction ; that the late proceedings of the conven- 
tion in New York, so far as they relate to this subject, 
were irregular ; and conclude with calling on the depu- 
ties to produce from their recollection an instance of a 
bishop's resignation. Those gentlemen, unable to con- 
trovert the opinion of the house of bishops, and unable 
to exhibit the instance required, regret that their ex- 
tensive and respectable diocese must thus be left, by 
the dereliction of Dr. Provoost, without the superin- 
tending care of a bishop. This difficulty the president 
proposes to obviate, by giving to the diocesan an assist- 
ant : and the proposal is cheerfully accepted by the 
party more immediately interested. But one of these 
clerical deputies, having objected that Di B. Moore 
had not been elected to fill the proposed office of an 
assistant, is answered — that as the gi eater includes the 
lesser, it may fairly be inferred, that if the convention 
of N.York would receive Dr. M. as their diocesan, they 
could not reasonably object to admit him as their dio~ 
cesan's assistant. This ingenious solution of the dif- 
ficulty, suggested by the presiding bishop, accords with 
the views of the delegates, and the conference is closed. 

Not having at hand the proceedings of that general 
convention, I cannot say whether the above mentioned 
conference is noticed on their journals, or not : but that 
such an interview took place, and that such was the 
substance and result of the conference, cannot safety be 
denied. I do not however much insist upon what was 
then said and agreed upon, because " what is written" 
will abundantly p;ove all that I require; viz. that the 
House of Bishops did not regard Dr. Provoost's 
offer to resign as an effectual or valid resignation. 
That right rev, board well knew all that had taken 
place on this subject ; they had before them Dr. P's. 
letter, in which he states the reasons of his resigning, 
as well as the supposed fact of his having actually re- 
signed ; they knew that Dr. B. Moore had been chosen 



[ 19 ] 

to supply the vacancy thus occasioned ; but they also 
knew that those proceedings were irregular and invalid, 
and they decided and acted accordingly. Their jour- 
nal informs us, that " having considered the subject be- 
fore them, they can see no grounds on which to believe 
that the contemplated resignation of bishop P. is con- 
sistent, &c." This language shews incontestably, that 
after all that had been done by the state-convention, 
the house of bishops regarded such proceedings as 
nugatory ; and that the resignation of Dr. Provoost, so 
far from hiving yet been validly made and accepted, 
was still only contemplated, still subject to meditation 
and discussion. 

Their journal next informs us, that having consid- 
ered the subject of the contemplated resignation, the 
bishops "judged it to be inconsistent with the sacred 
trust committed to them, to recognize the act as an 
effectual resignation of his episcopal jurisdiction.'' 
Happily for the friends of order, justice, and truth, this 
language of the journal can be neither misunderstood 
nor perverted. The house of bishops, knew that Dr. 
P. had done an act, and that the act was intended by 
him to amount to a resignation : but it was this very 
act which they could not conscientiously recognize, 
as having been well or effectually "done. They considered 
the subject ; they meditated upon it ; they discussed 
it among themselves ; and they even condescended (so 
careful were they to avoid the imputation of coming to 
a hasty decision) to consult the clerical delegates from 
this diocese : the result of this deliberation' and con- 
sultation was — a peremptory refusal to recognize the 
contemplated act. Independently of their assurance, 
we have satisfactory proof that the house of bishops 
had deliberated long and much, before they came to a 
decision on this subject : they have assigned their 
reasons for refusing to recognize the resignation : 
the reasons are — because it is " inconsistent with 
ecclesiastical order, with the practice of episcopal 
churches in all ages, and with the tenour of the office 
ef consecration." To any man, who had not previ- 



[ 520 ] 



ously resolved to exclude conviction, such reasons as 
are here assigned would be abundantly satisfactory : 
on one, who obstinately closes his eyes against the ad- 
mission of the light of truth, ten thousand such reasons 
would be heaped in vain. 

To meet this decision thus supported, Dr. Hobart 
objects, that it is merely an opinion of the bishops; and 
that the declaration of their opinion is no law to the 
church. This sentiment, from one who still cherishes 
the expectation of being, " by hook or by crook," ad- 
mitted into their number, is rather extraordinary. But 
the gentleman holds a very versatile pen, and can em- 
ploy it in favour of euher high or low church principles, 
just as immediate convenience may dictate. Thus he 
franklv admits in his Statement, that he is solicitous 
'.' that this opinion of the bishops should be respect- 
ed;" he expresses his conviction "that no bishop 
should hereafter resign his episcopal jurisdiction;" 1 
he even ventures to predict that, " in future, the course 
pointed out [by the decision of the bishops] will be 
pursued." And yet this very decision, for which he 
is so solicitous to secure re-pect, he elsewhere treats 
with disregard and contempt. In all cases, except the 
case of Dr. Provoost, he confesses that it ought to be 
obligatory : but on the precise occasion, on which this 
accommodating decision was given, it fails to have any 
binding effect. What is the plain meaning of this 
trimming language? — if ever I should become a bish- 
op, and be clothed with jurisdictional importance, no 
resignation of jurisdiction ought thento be permitted; 
because it would then, from that time forward, be in- 
consistent with ecclesiastical order, with the practice 
of episcopal churches in all ages, and with the tenor of 
the conbecration- office ! Can any man of ordinary un- 
derstanding discover, why that which has the force of 
law in one case, should have no force at all in another.*? 
why Dr. Provoost should be allowed to resign, and 
why Dr.B. Moore should not? Was not the opinion of 
the house of bishops equally well known in either case? 
nay, was not that opinion expressly promulgated in op- 



C 21 ] 



position to the resignation of the former? Really this 
sets all reasoning at defiance. 

But the truth is, that the bishops did not mean that 
their opinion should operate as a law : they merely stat- 
ed what the law had been in the church ab origine; they 
merely said that the contemplated resignation was an 
innovation, inconsistent with the usage hitherto re- 
spected by all episcopalians. This, in their character 
as a conclave of bishops, it was their duty to declare. 
And therefore the quibbling insinuation, that if it had 
any legal force it must have operated, in the case of 
Dr. Provoost, as an ex post facto law, bears on its face 
the features of some half-bred lawyer ; probably of 
that " only one clerical friend" to whom the Statement 
was shewn in manuscript; and of whose sophistry and 
subtlety the late Gen. Hamilton predicted, that they 
could not fail to make their possessor " a breeder of 
mischief wherever he wento" The discernment of the 
General was never so well exemplified as in the veri- 
fication of this prediction. 

What, in the name of common sense, what could the 
bishops mean, if they did not mean that their declara- 
tion of an existing law of the church should apply to 
the case then before them, to the identical case on 
which they were then deliberating ? If they had 
thought that their declaration was to have no effect on 
the case of bishop Provoost, why make any declaration 
respecting him ? why send a copy of their decision 
and determination to the lower house, unless they ex- 
pected and required the lower house to act in conform- 
ity to it ? Jf the declaration of the bishops was not in- 
tended to operate as a law, but only as their exposition of 
the law, what had the lower house to do with it, unless 
to regulate their conduct on the approaching occasion 
of recommending an assistant bishop ? Did the bish- 
ops anticipate a recurrence of the present dilemma, and 
thus make provision for meeting it? When they declared 
that they could not, consistently with the sacred trust 
committed to them, recognize the bishop's resignation, 
did they refer exclusively to the bishops who might 



[22 ] 



hereafter propose to resign ? Had they no eye to the 
bishop , to the only bishop, whose case had called for 
their consideration ? Is not this putting into the mouths 
of our Right Reverend Fathers in God, the language 
of drivellers, language that would disgrace a half-bred 
lawyer ? 

Hence we discover the propriety of Mr, Jones's ob- 
servation — that the lower house of clerical and lay 
deputies acquiesced in the proceedings of the house of 
bishops. They could not do otherwise. Had the up- 
per house proposed to pass a law respecting the resig- 
nation of a bishop, the concurrence of the clerical and 
lay deputies would have been necessary to its enac- 
tion : but when the bishops did no more than declare 
what had been the law and the usage of the church 
from its first establishment, the lower house must 
either have contravened that declaration, or have acqui- 
esced, as they did, in its truth and propriety. The sub- 
ject of resignation was, in fact, exclusively before the 
bishops. They alone had the power of consecration ; 
they alone were competent to admit Dr. B. Moore into 
their number, or to exclude him ; they alone could 
dictate the terms of his admission : for it will not, 
surely, be contended that a bishop elect can enforce the 
compliance of the house of bishops. Tnat house 
therefore very judiciously, without consulting the 
clerical and lay deputies upon the measure, proceeded 
conformably to their interpretation of an existing law, 
to discharge their duty : they declared that they could 
not recognize the resignation of Dr. Provoost, and that 
they would not admit Dr. Moore to the benefits of con- 
secration, except as an assistant to his diocesan. I do 
not deny that Dr. Moore had been elected to another 
office than that which he now holds : but the bishops, 
being conscientiously persuaded that the office was not 
yet vacant, and could not be vacated during the life of 
the incumbent, consecrated him, with his own concur- 
rence, as an assistant to Dr. Provoost. 

Dr. Hobart asserts that "there is not the shadow of 
evidence, that this declaration of the bishops received 



I 23 ] 



the concurrence of the house of clerical and lay depu- 
ties." This I deny. I maintain that there is more than 
the shadow ; nay, the most positive, the most satisfac- 
tory proof of their concurrence. " The secretary not 
being present (says the journal) Bishop Jarvis is re- 
quested to deliver the above [the opinion and deter- 
mination of the bishop;,] as a message to the house of 
clerical and lay deputies." " A message (says the 
journal of the lower house) was received from the 
bishops, informing this house that they had appointed 
to-morrow morning, 10 o'clock for the consecration of 
Rev. Dr. B. Moore : on motion, Resolved, that this 
house will attend the consecration at the appointed 
time :" and they attended accordingly. 1 clo not mean 
to insinuate that the concurrence of die lower house was 
necessary to sanction the opinion and determination of 
the bishops : but I do think that the man must be blind- 
ed by prejudice, who does not see in the foregoing reso- 
lution some shadow of evidence that they fully concur- 
ed. They had read the message from the bishops, 
containing their opinion that Dr. Provoost's resigna- 
tion was ineffectual, and their readiness to consecrate 
any person who might be duly presented to them as an 
assistant to that gentleman. The members of the lower 
house therefore, when they signed the testimonials of 
Dr. Moore, did actually subscribe to the correctness 
of the opinion under which they were acting : and 
when they resolved, on motion to that effect, to attend 
the consecration, they did actually consent to the terms 
on which they knew that Dr. M. was to be conse- 
crated. " When a man (as our modern Ignatius very 
sagaciously observes gets up and walks forward, all 
controversy about the existence of motion must be at 
an end :" so, when a deliberating body of men does, 
both by words and by acts, concur in any proposed 
measure, there ought to be an end of all controversy 
respecting their concurrence. But I go further : I 
fearlessly make the appeal to every member of both 
houses of that convention, whether at that time Dr. 



C 24 ] 



Provoost was not universally regarded as the diocesan 
bisnop, and Dr. Moore as his assistant only. 

But after all that has been said, it will be urged by 
my opponents, that it was \xvs jurisdiction, not his office, 
which bishop P. resigned to the state convention ; thus 
making the former term the hir.ge on which the whole 
controversy is to turn. If I could have brought my- 
se.t 'o helieve that the exclusive use of this word would 
materially affect the argument, I think that I should 
have adopted it ; although I am aware that in so doing 
I sh-uld have made a great sacrifice to complaisance. 
But I really can see no benefit that would result from 
it. Whether Dr. Provoost tendered to the state-con- 
vention his episcopal office, or his episcopal jurisdiction, 
or his personal estate ; if he made the tender in an un- 
authorised, informal, illegal manner; and if the con- 
vention were not competent to accept his offer, and did 
not in fact accept it ; the result must still be the same. 
And this is the true statement of the case. 

Granting that it was only his jurisdiction, which he 
acknowledged himself, in his letter to Dr. White, to 
have resigned : was it not precisely that jurisdiction, 
which the house of bishops, after mature deliberation 
and consultation, declared that he codld not resign? 
Was it not the resignation of his jurisdiction which 
they pronounced to be inconsistent with ecclesiastical 
order, with the universal practice of episcopal churches, 
and with his consecration vows? Was it not the special 
case of bishop Provoust's resignation on which this 
decision of the upper house was had ? and was it not 
the same case, on which the lower 'house deliberately 
concurred in the propriety of that decision? 

The present dispute turns, according to my con- 
ception of it, not on a word, but on a jact. If Dr. Ho- 
bart and a few others, interested in the issue of this 
controversy, imagine that the convention of this diocese 
were impowered to accept their bishop's resignation, 
under the circumstances that attended his offer, ( or 
indeed under any circumstances) I have substantia! 



C 25 ] 



reasons for believing that they differ in sentiment, not 
only with myself, but also with the upper and lower 
houses in general convention assembled at Trenton, 
and with three fourths of the episcopalians throughout 
the United States. Dr. Hobart flatters himself with 
an idea, that with the exception of a very small num- 
ber, there are no clergymen in this diocese who will 
publicly unite with us in opinion on this subject. He 
did wisely to employ the term publicly : for there are 
several, of whom perhaps he little thinks, who cordi- 
ally concur with us in sentiment, although they dare 
not expn ss their sentiments openly. Would the read- 
er know the reason for the necessity of this suppression 
of opmion ? It is because they are muzzled by the 
vestry of Trinity church. " Hinc illae lachrymae." 

Messrs. Hobart and Jones seem to be for once 
agreed, that a man "must surely understand his own 
act, and the act of his brethren done in his presence 
and with his concurrence." Now I differ, once more, 
from both these gentlemen. Had they said — that a 
man might be expected, or ought, to understand &c. — 
I should have acquiesced in silence : but I can never 
admit that a man must understand his own act. Dr. 
White's account of the circumstances attending the 
consecration of Dr. B. Moore, drawn up in the Ency- 
clopedia before he became a party to this controversy, 
may be. comprehended by a very attentive reader: 
but his explanatory letter, published in Dr. Hobart's 
Statement, is perfectly incomprehensible ; it is abso- 
lutely impossible to gather from it what are his own 
ideas of his own act : and I therefore leave Dr. H. in 
the full enjoyment of his triumph, and of his skill in 
riddle-me, riddle-me-ree. It is possible that Dr. VV. 
may incline to Dr. Hob art's side of the question : but 
it is equally possible, and mnre probable, that he co- 
incides in opinion u ith myself. 

In glancing over a page of Dr. Hobart's Statement, 
as it now lies open before me, my eye was this moment 
arrested by the following passage : — " Nor is it pre. 
tended that either the laws or the practice of our church 

D 



[ 26 ] 



were opposed to the resignation, when the convention 
of i801 was convened." How indecorous this asser- 
tion, in the very face of the public declaration of the 
bishops — " That the contemplated resignation is not 
consistent with the practice of episcopal churches in 
any age I 1 ' Is not this another instance of his bold as- 
sertions ? May we not, from this specimen of his ar- 
rogance infer, that the house of bishops will not find 
the time hanging heavy on their hands, if ever Dr. H. 
should be entitled to a seat among them ? But it is to 
be hoped that there will always be some members of 
that body, v»ho will not consent to be cudgelled out of 
their senses, or dragooned into approbation of incon- 
sistency, folly, and falsehood. 

If my arguments carry' or are entitled to, that weight 
which parental partiality naturally attaches to them, 
I have proved that the bishops were alone authorised 
to accept the resignation of Dr. Provoost, and that 
they peremptorily refused to accept it, cr to acknow- 
ledge that it had been validly accepted elsewhere, on 
the ground that such recognition would be " incon- 
sistent with the sacred trust committed to them." 
This (as' Dr. Hobart is in the constant habit of saying) 
*' This should terminate the discussion." 

But this is not all. The two houses concurred in 
giving the diocesan an assistant ; and the assistant 
himself well knew, previously to his consecration, the 
restrictions, the state of dependence, to which the de- 
cision of the bishops had subjected him. Every cler- 
ical and lay delegate from this state,* and some others 
who were present when Dr. Moore arrived at Trenton, 
must remember, how resentfully that gentleman spoke 
of the decision of the general convention respecting 
him, and his declaration—-" that if he had known it 
before he left home, he would not have come on to re- 

* The clerical delegates who attended this convention were (as I have 
fieen informed) the Rev. Messrs. Beach, Ireland, Wilkins, and Hobait. 
The lay-deputies were Messrs. John Read, and William Ogden. To these 
names may be added (according' to Mr, Jones) that of Rev. A. Baldwin, 

geeretai'^y tp the lower house. 



[ 27 ] 



ceive consecration upon such terms." Yes; Dr. M. 
well knew, at that time, that Bp. Prcvoost had been 
adjudged to be still the diocesan, and that himself was 
to be only an assistant, subject to certain restrictions 
and limitations to be afterwards defined : he never once 
thought, at that time, ol claiming to be diocesan, dur- 
ing the life of Dr. Provoost : but " tempora mutan- 
tur, &c." 

1 regret that the terms " coadjutor and suffragan" 
have been introduced into this controversy : their only 
use has been to confound and distract both the dispu- 
tants and the dispute. It is now, however, too late ro 
discard them, and I will therefore endeavour to assign 
to them their appropriate significations. 

A suffragan bishop is one who has been consecrated 
for the express, the exclusive purpose of assisting his 
diocesan, in those duties which aie purely clerical or 
spiritual; such as "consecrating churches, holding 
confirmations, ordaining priests and deacons," &c: 
but he has no concern in the temporal affairs of the 
diocese. 

A coadjutor bishop is one who has been consecrated 
for the express, the exclusive purpose of assisting his 
diocesan, in those duties which are purely of a temporal 
nature; he has the whole care of the revenues of the 
diocese ; and his province is "to collate to benefices, 
to institute clerks, to furnish letters dimissory, to grant 
dispensations," &c. but he has no concern in the Cler- 
ical or spiritual affairs of the diocese. 

The cowardly* and quibbling author of the " Re- 
marks on Mr. Jay's letter" says, that " I evidently con- 
sider a suffragan bishop as superior to a coadjutor bi- 
shop." Doubtless I do: and so does every other 
man who has sense enough to discern the difference 
between the duties assigned to each. A suffragan to 
a bishop must necessarily himself be a bishop : but a 

* " Cowardly,'' because I challenged him to. appear with roe before the 
public "in propria persona," and to substantiate his charge of misquoting 
bishop Gibson : but he very prudently declined the offer, and preferred to 
be branded as " a knave or a fool.'' See Merning Post of 1st. Feb. last. 



[ 28 ] 



coadjutor to a bishop may be a presbyter or a deacon. 
And even when the infirmities of a bishop require the 
assistance ot both these officers ; and even when both 
are made bishops ; the furmer must still be superior to 
the latter, in the estimation of all those who regard tern- 
poral services as inferior to those of a spiritual nature. 
It will hardly be said that a coadjutor is not inferior to 
his own diocesan : how then could it enter the head of 
the author of the " Remarks," that a coadjutor is su- 
perior to a suffragan, when it is well known to all 
( except the author of the " Remarks'') that every dio- 
cesan bishop in Great Britain is called and considered 
as a suffragan to the arch-bishop or metropolitan? It 
is devoutly to be hoped that this intelligent writer has 
no expectation of becoming a bishop, a suffragan, or 
even a coadjutor. 

The author of the " remarks" has fallen into this 
error, in consequence of careless, superficial reading: 
nor should I waste my time in undeceiving him, were 
it not that a thorough understanding of this point is 
connected with the present discussion. He had seen 
in one page of Gibson's code, that when an assistant 
to an infirm bishop ^as ordained coadjutor bishop, 
" the whole care was intrusted to him." Delighted 
with an assertion which seemed to militate so power- 
fully in his favour, he looked no further. Had he ex- 
amined the second volume of the code, he would have 
found that the learned prelate explained his own mean- 
ing thus : — " The powers conveyed to a coadjutor are 
" first in general terms, the office of a coadjutor; and 
" then in particular, the looking after the cure, the re- 
" ceiving of the profits, and the discharging of the 
** burdens [debts] with an obligation to be accountable 
" to the ordinary, when called upon. But I think the 
'* article of " looking after the cure" is a late clause ; 
" having observed no more in the ancient appoint- 
" ments of this kind, even since the reformation, than 
" the administration of the revenues; which therefore. 
" exactly answers to the account that hath been alrea- 
" dy given [by himself in vol. 1st.] of coadjutors to 



[ 29 ] 



'* bishops, as appointed only to take care of the TEM- 
" PORALITIES. The spiritual part was commit- 
** ted to a bishop suffragan : this [the spiritual part] 
" was no part of the office of a coadjutor, as such, 
" M i h did anciently relate to the temporalities only. 
" In the time of arch-bishop Abbot, we find the com- 
" mission of a coadjutor explained and enforced, by 
" special rules and orders to be obserwd between the 
" minister and his coadjutor, in p int of profits,* &c. 
" So in <he time of arch-bish- p Bancroft, we find a 
" bond also given by the coadjutor, for a faithful ac- 
*' count to be given to the ordinary, or other spiritual 
" judge to be appointed by him." 

The conclusion to be drawn from all this I conceive 
to be — that a bishop's coadjutor has not, as such, any 
thing to do with the spiritual concerns of the diocese ; 
— that he is a subordinate officer, because he is required 
to give a faithful account of his administration of the 
revenues, to some superior ; either the suffragan or 
some other spiritual officer to be appointed by his di- 
ocesan ; — and that when bishop Gibson, speaking of 
a coadjutor bishop, said that " the whole care was 
vested hx him," he alluded to the whole care of the 
tempor^mties of the diocese. 

Dr. Hobart seems, however, to think differently : 
he has ventured to assert — lt that the whole care means, 
in other words, the zvhole jurisdiction.'''' Now I, in 
my turn, venture to say, that a more ridiculous asser- 
tion than this was never advanced by any doctor of 
divinity. The whole care means the whole jurisdic- 
tion I Then the overseer, to whom I have committed 
the whole care of my farm, has the whole jurisdiction 
of it, to the entire exclusion of the rightful prop: ietor I 
nor can I ever resume either the care or the jurisdic- 
tion, without his consent ! The whole care means the 
whole jurisdiction ! Messrs. Skaats and Collister, 

* In the second volume of Gibson's code, we have the form in which the 
coadjutor to the bishop of Hereford was censured fcr neglecting the duties 
of his office: the charge exhibited against him was — for suffering the 
goods or temporalities of the bishopric to be wasted. 



[ 3o ] 



permit me to make my due obeisance to gentlemen in 
your exalted stations: in ijou y Mr. Skaats, I recog- 
nize the dignified personage, who possesses exclusive 
jurisdiction in the City-Hall; for I understand that you 
have the w/wle care of that building: myou, Mr. Col- 
lister, I recognize an officer of far moie extensive 
power than even Mr. Skaats can boast; for I under- 
stand that you have the whole care of Trinity church, 
and that you consequently (for who will dispute the 
authority of Dr. Hobart ?) possess the entire jurisdic- 
tion of that monstrous establishment ! 

From the preceding account of sufFragass and co- 
adjutors, and of their distinct provinces, some of my 
readers may be apt to infer — that as Dr. B. Moore 
was ordained a coadjutor to Bishop Provoost, he had 
no authority to perform any spiritual act as a bishop ; 
and that all such acts of his are nugatory and invalid. 
But no such inference can fairly be drawn from the 
premises. - "A bishop's coadjutor, as such, has not 
any thing to do with the spiritual concerns of the dio- 
cese :'' but the two offices of suffragan and coadjutor 
may be united in one person. And this I conceive 
to be the case with respect to Dr. Moore. He was, 
indeed (very improperly, according to my jiw^ment) 
denominated coadjutor : the more appropriate term 
would have been suffragan ; for as there are no tem- 
poralities annexed - to the jurisdiction of this diocese, 
the only assistance which the diocesan could have re- 
quired, under-existing circumstances, must have been 
of a suffraganic nature : all that was wanting was, 
some one to be clothed with authority to discharge the 
spiritual duties of a bishop in the state of New- York. 
I can therefore see nothing of that inconsistency with 
which I am charged, when I lately admitted — " that 
Dr. B. Mcore is- a coadjutor, clothed with full power 
to discharge every duty appertaining to the episcopal 
office, under certain regtdations.'''' But I cannot see 
the propriety or truth of the inference which Dr. Ho- 
bart draws from this admission of mine — " that even 
granting bishop Moore to be merely a coadjutor, his 



[ 31 ] 



power remains unlimited:'''' — so far from admitting 
this, I maintain that the very reverse is the truth. 

Bishop Moore was rendered, by the act of his con- 
secration, " competent in point of character to all the 
episcopal duties." In other words' he was made (tho' 
not called) a suffragan bishop, and clothed with power 
to perform every spiritual act appertaining to his office. 
But he was not by the act of his consecration invested 
with authority to perform any one act of an episcopal 
nature : his authority to act in his new character was 
made to depend on certain regulations, which were af- 
terwards to be made ; and until those prescribed regu- 
lations took place, his authority could not commence. 
If I have not expressed myself on this point with suffi- 
cient clearness, the fault lies in my adoption of terms 
which are not adequate to the conveyance of my mean- 
ing. I conceive that the power to perform an act, and 
the authority to perform it, are essentially different : 
and I will endeavour to exemplify the position. Dr. 
Beach possesses full power to discharge every duty 
appertaining to his office as a priest ; and every act so 
performed by him would be validly done: but he has 
no authority to discharge any one duty of his office in 
the parish of another. Were he, in the face of a canon 

forbidding him, to perform an act of his office in 

without the permission of " Ignatius,"* such an act, 
although valid, would be irregular, uncanonical, and 
reprehensible. Thus the acts of Dr. B. Moore as a 
bishop, although performed in defiance of those re- 
strictions which were imposed at his consecration ; al- 
though performed before those regulations were made, 
without which he had no authority to act at all ; altho* 
performed in violation of a canon, which forbids a 
clergyman to intrude on the jurisdiction of another ; 
yet are such official acts valid, because he was clothed 
with a competency of character to perform them : but 
they are, nevertheless, instances of an irregular, unca- 
nonical, and reprehensible stretch of pozver. As a 

* The author of a late pamphlet called " The truth, «* ■» whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth." 



[ 32 ] 



baptism, performed by Dr. Beach in West- Chester 
Without the consent of the rector, would be good in 
respect to the party baptized ; so the ordinations per- 
formed by Dr. Moore, although done w ithout the re- 
quisite concurrence of the diocesan and of the state- 
convention, are good in regard to the persons so or- 
dained : because lie had the power, although not the 
authority, to ordain them. Whether other certain acts 
of his are valid, acts of an extra-official nature, and 
especially a late act which, so far from being sanc- 
tioned by his diocesan, was performed in the very 
teeth of his written interdict, is another question. 

Having now explicitly admitted (what I have never 
denied) that bishop Moore is competent in point of 
character to all the episcopal duties ; that although 
he was ordained merely a coadjutor, and was so ex- 
pressly denominated by the persons who ordained 
him, yet the competency then conferred gives him the 
poivers of a suffragan; the next enquiry should be — 
What are a suffragan's powers ? 

In that church ("on an undeviating adherence to 
whose principles the very existence of the church in 
this country depends",) in the church of England, the 
powers of a suffragan bishop are clearly defined, de- 
clared, understood, and exercised accordingly. The 
late bishop Berkeley (well known in the U. States as 
Dean Berkeley) held a bishopric in Ireland. Desirous 
of superintending the education of his son, who had 
entered college at Oxford, the bishop exerted all his 
interest to obtain leave to resign his diocese. For this 
purpose he at length addressed the king, as the spirit- 
ual head of the church. But all his repealed and 
powerful applications were made in vain. He was told 
that he could not resign, but must die a bishop "in 
spite of himself." He succeeded however so far, as 
to be permitted to reside wherever he pleased, and to 
obtain the aid of a suffragan to discharge the duties of 
the see, during the bishop's absence. This suffragan 
kept up a constant correspendence with his diocesan 
at Oxford ; gave him a regular account of the state of 



[ 33 ] 



his diocese ; and whenever any episcopal duty was to 
be performed, obtained from the bishop a special 
commission for the purpose. This procedure was in 
exact conformity with the existing law of the church 
of England, which expressly declares, that neither a 
suffragan nor a coadjutor to a bishop shall have any 
jurisdiction in the diocese of him whose assistant he 
may be, " save what said bishop shall, by commission 
under his senl, allow him ; and only for such time as 
said bishop shall allow." The words of the statute 
are — " Every arch-bishop and bishop, for their own 
" peculiar diocess, may and shall give such commission 
<c or commissions to every such bishop suffragan as 
" shall be so consecrated by authority of this act, a* 
" hath been accustomed for suffragans heretofore to 
" have, or else such commission as by them shall be 
" thought requisite, reasonable and convenient : and 
" no such suffragan shall use any jurisdiction, ordinary, 
e< or episcopal power, otherwise nor longer time than 
" shall be limited by such commission to him to be 
" given, as is aforesaid, upon pain to incur," &.c. 

It will not be necessary here to inquire, what were 
<{ the accustomed commissions of suffragans hereto- 
fore ;" because we have upon record a modern suffra- 
gan's commission, by which he is restricted to the 
performance of certain acts : such as— confirming 
young, persons ; consecrating altars, chalices, vest- 
ments, and other ornaments of the church ; conferring 
the minor orders, &c. But it is worthy of remark, 
that such commissions were always revocable, confor- 
mably to the statute : " Te quoad prasmissa suffragan, 
eum nostrum ordinamus & praeficirnus per praesen- 
tes, donee eas ad nos duxerimus revocand." 

From all that I have hitherto been enabled to col- 
lect from ancient history, from modern history, from 
the usages of the Greek and Latin churches, and from 
the established practice of the church of England (to 
whose principles and rules we profess an undeviating 
adherence) the powers of a suffragan are either limited* 



[ 34 ] 



to certain general acts, or extended, in virtue of a spe- 
cial commission from the diocesan for some specific 
object. 

Bishop Gibson says, that " the institution of suffra- 
gans is of evident use in large dioceses, and under in- 
firm and aged bishops, especially for the work of conse- 
cration ;'' that their usefulness appears more evidently 
from this fact — that "they are effectually restrained 
from any possibility, almost, cf encroaching upon their 
bishops, or being uneasy to them." How undevia- 
tingly we have, in this country and in this particular, 
adhered to the practice of the church of England, we 
may gather from Dr. Hobart's Statement. The house 
of bishops had proclaimed to the world, that they con- 
sidered Dr. B. Moore "as assistant or coadjutor bi- 
shop during bishop Provoost's life, and that they con- 
secrated him conformably with the line of conduct 
thus laid down" by themselves. Dr. Hobart has 
since published to the world, that " bishop Moore is 
the diocesan bishop of the P. E. church in the state of 
New- York ; that bishop P. has no right to this office ; 
that he is not the bishop in any sense j that he has no 
episcopal jurisdiction.'' Is it any proof of " undevia- 
ting adherence to the principles of the church of En- 
gland," to say that an assistant is the diocesan, and 
that the real diocesan (who has been pronounced to be 
such by the supreme authority of on?' own church) has 
no episcopal jurisdiction ? What would bishop Gibson 
have thought of his impossibility? ( — that a suffragan 
could encroach upon his bishop, or be a source of un- 
easiness to him) had he lived to witness a recent case ; 
in which the diocesan expressed his pointed disappro- 
bation of the suffragan's iniquitous proceedings, and 
yet the suffragan persevered to violate all decency 
and order ! What would he have thought .of his im- 
possibility, had he lived to hear it publicly asserted — 
not only that the diocesan is a cipher, and that the as- 
sistant is the diocesan ; but also that the diocesan and 
his assistant are both ciphers, and that a certain Ter- 
ihivz Quid, the assistant's assistant is all in all !-r- 



C 35 ] 



Would he not have exclaimed with uplifted hands-*- 
Oh tempora, oh mores ! 

But we are, happily, relieved from the necessity of 
resorting to foreign usages. Our ozvn house of bish- 
ops demanded to be explicitly understood, that who- 
ever should be presented to them for consecration, 
would be considered by them as assistant bishop dur- 
ing Dr. Provoost's life ; and .that the extent, in which 
the said assistant was to discharge his duties, should 
be dependent. True, says Dr. Hobart : but who re- 
gards the opinion (and he might as well have added — 
who regards the acts J of the house of bishops ? They 
gave Dr. B. Moore a commission, by which he was 
made dependent: but I, I John H. Hobart (by and with 
the advice of my senate, the vestry of Trinity church) 
do pronounce him to be, on the strength of that same 
Limited commission, perfectly independent. With 
equal propriety might the corporal, who was advanced 
to a halbert in the service of the United States, contend 
that his promotion had rendered him independent of 
his military commander. But will not even Mr\ Hoiv 
admit, that a man may do tolerably well in the hum- 
ble station of a halberdier,' who would make a most 
awkward figure at the head of an army, or even of 
a company ? 

Our house of bishops explicitly declared, not only 
that they should regard Dr. Provoost's assistant as de- 
pendent, but also that the very terms on which they 
zooidd consecrate him were — that the extent, in which 
the said assistant should perform any episcopal duties, 
was to be " dependent on such regulations as expedi- 
ency might dictate to the church in N.York, grounded 
on the indisposition of bishop Provoost, and with his 
[Bp. P's.] concurrence.'' Should any fastidious reader 
object to the obscurity of the language in which this 
declaration is couched, I shall only lament his pow- 
ers of discernment : for I venture to say that almost 
any man of ordinary capacity may, after devoting Jour 
and liventy hours to the subject, comprehend what the 
ingenious and learned penman means by those few 



C 36 ] 



words. And yet I am bound to speak with caution i 
for Dr. Hobart thinks that the writer means one thing, 
while I am of the opinion that he means another. Dr. 
H. for instance believes (or affects to believe) that Dr. 
Provoost's concurrence was necessary, not to the epis- 
copal duties themselves, but to " the regulations de- 
termining the extent to which those duties should be 
discharged "* Whereas myself and a few thousand 
others are of the persuasion, that it was the duties them- 
selves, or at least the extent to which Dr. Moo.-e was 
to discharge them, that were to have the sanction of 
bishop Provoost's concurrence. It appears to me to be 
an absurdity to say, that the concurrence of the dioce- 
san is requisite to certain regulations, but that he has 
nothing to do with the extent to which those regula- 
tions may be carried. It appears to me, that if the 
state convention had (as they were in duty bound to 
do) proceeded to make those regulations bj' which the 
assistant bishop Was to govern himself ; and if those 
regulations had been presented to the diocesan for his 
concurrence ; Dr. Provoost might have said — I ap- 
prove of your proposed regulations so far as the nature 
of them is concerned, but I object to their extent ; be- 
cause, if carried to this length, they will go to my own 
entire exclusion from all episcopal interference. 

At all events (for I cannot waste time in splitting 
a hair) something was to be done by the church in N. 
York, and something was to receive the concurrence 
of Dr. Provoost, before Dr. Moore could enter upon 
his career of episcopal duties. Very true, says Dr. Ho- 
bart ; and therefore, because ?iot!ii?ighas hitherto been 
done by the church in N.York, and because nothing has 
yet' received the sanction of Bp Provoost's concurrence, 
the power of the assistant is unlimited arid subject to 
no regulations : he may do what he pleases ; and even 
kick his diocesan, the state convention, and the house 

* I will not go so far as to say, that this is explaining ambiguity by unin- 
telligibility ; but it is something very much like it. It reminds me of the 
explication of the common word *' net;" which, in the phraseology of our 
greatest lexicographer, is — " A texture woven with large interstices of 
meshes.'' Who, after this ckar account of things, who can be at a loss t« 
Say what a "net" means ? - 



[37 1 



of bishops in the bargain, to——! Admirable logic ! 
Why, this out-herods Herod ! it beats the Professor of 
moral science in Columbia college all hollow ! Had 
our little great man lived in the reign of Charles 1st. 
I doubt not but he would have disputed with Crom- 
well himself the title of — " Ecclesiae propugnator 
acerrimus." A plain, honest man, who thinks ? that he 
understands English, would be apt to say — From the 
terms on which Dr. Moore was consecrated it appears 
to me, that all his proceedings, as assistant bishop, 
were to be regulated by the concurrent consent of the 
convention and of Dr. Provoost ; and that, until the 
convention had assigned the extent of his duties, and 
until Dr. P. had given the sanction of his approbation, 
Dr. Moore was not authorised to perform a single 
episcopal act. But let me assure all such plain, honest 
men, that they know nothing of the matter. The truth 
is — (if they are disposed to believe Dr. Hobart and 
his partizans) — that were I to give a man a power of 
attorney to act in my behalf, on the express conditions 
that he should previously consult my father upon all 
occasions, and that my father's advice should be ap- 
proved by my son ; then, according to this modem 
logic, if my father was never consulted, and if my son 
did not assent to measures that were never proposed 
to him ; my attorney is left at liberty to act without 
restraint, and to bring myself, my father, and son, to 
ruin ! I honestly acknowledge my insufficiency to re- 
ply to such arguments as these. 

It appears from a pamphlet now lying before me (for 
Dr. Hobart's Statement and Mr. Jones's system of 
Hobart's intolerance are the only documents which I 
have consulted) that Dr. H. was ordained " to assist 
the bishops of the church in this state." It has long 
been a subject of enquiry — Who is the bishop of the 
church in this diocese ? But a new proposition here 
presents itself — Who are the bishops? Is Dr. B. 
Moore the bishops? for Mr. Hobart assures us that Dr. 
Provoost is not in any sense the bishop, and that he has 
no episcopal jurisdiction here. Whom then, besides* 



[ 38 ] 



Dr. Moore, is Dr. Hobart said to have been conse- 
crated to assist ? To a man of ordinary capacity it 
would suggest itself, that bishop Provoost must ne- 
cessarily be one of the bishops here alluded to : and 
were it not for Dr. Hobart's assertion, we might get 
over the difficulty without loss of time. But how can 
a man be appointed to assist another, if the other has 
himself nothing to do? Does not this sound a little 
like an Hvbernicism ? It reminds me of the short di- 
alogue which took place between a captain of a ship, 
and two of his crew who were sitting in the mizzen 
top: — "What are you doing there, Pat? Nothing, 
Sir. And what are you doing, Murphy ? Helping- 
Pat, Sir." I wish to be serious ; but it is absolutely 
impossible, on such an occasion. 

I shall never cease to regret that Dr. White has 
made himself a party to this controversy : for he has 
thereby much lowered his character in the estimation 
of every man of discernment. It is a maxim, sanc- 
tioned by time and experience, that " no number of 
wrongs can ever make a right." Could Dr. W. feel 
the force of this remark, he would retrace his steps e're 
it be too late ; he Mould vindicate his own reputation 
by expressing his real sentiments on this subject, in 
undisguised, unambiguous language ; he would re- 
trieve the dignity of the house of bishops, by stating 
candidly what teas the unanimous opinion of that vener- 
able board, respecting the resignation of bishop Pro- 
voost. I have no disposition to detract from " the char- 
acter, the services, or (even) the seniority* of bishop 
White :'' but I cannot cede to him all these claims to 
•pre-eminence to the prejudice of my own amiable di- 
ocesan : in each of these particulars, as well as in solid 
learning, polite literature, suavity of manners, and cor- 
rectness of judgment, he must not be alloived to yield 
the palm to any one of his episcopal compeers. When 
therefore Dr. W. would impose upon me his individual 
opinion, that " the exercise of jurisdiction should be re- 
sumed by bishop Provoost under the same solemnity 

* Bishop White is not senior to Bishop Troyoost. 



[ 39 ] 



Ivith which it was formerly declined I contrast that 
gentleman's opinion with the opinion of Dr. Provoost, 
and agree with the latter — that what was never effec- 
tually laid down, cannot require a formal resumption. 

Dr. W's. reasoning ab inconveniente is perfectly 
futile, and beneath the dignity of his station. Agree- 
ably to his own argument I can prove, that we ought 
to have no bishops ; because there has been an endless 
disturbance in the church ever since their introduction 
among us : or, at least, that there ought to be no more 
than one bishop in any one diocese ; because there has 
been no peace in the church since the number was 
increased. 

There is another observation in Dr. White's letter, 
which is deserving of notice. Speaking of bishop 
Provoost's ignorance of the proceedings respecting 
him at Trenton, he says — " In every society, civil or 
religious, no stress is laid upon such a plea, in regard 
to the public transactions of the body : and although 
great allowances are in equity made in cases of the 
charge of guilt or of neglect, yet the same does not 
extend to questions of a claim of right." I pronounce 
this to be a most gross perversion of a general rule, 
which applies to the common law and to acts of the 
legislature only. The acts of any other body whatso- 
ever are not to be reeognised, until the party concern- 
ed has formal notice of the act itself. Dr. Provoost 
asserts (and who has ever presumed to call in question 
the truth of any of his assertions?) that, until very 
lately, he knew nothing of the proceedings of either 
the state or general convention respecting him. He 
had every reason to presume that his resigna;ion had 
been recognised by the house of bishops : for Dr. B. 
Moore assured him that himself (Dr. M.) had been 
chosen to succeed him ; that he was preparing to set 
off for Trenton ; and solicited the loan of his (Dr. P's.) 
robts on the occasion of his consecration. Could Dr. 
Provoost, after this,* doubt that his resignation had 

* I do not mean to insinuate that Dr. M. was guilty cf a wilful deception ; 
he did not himself know, until his arrival in Trenton, that lie was to 
Cpnsecrated as an assistant only. 



E 4 o I 



been formally accepted ? I readily admit that, had he 
sought, he might have obtained, further information : 
but it must at the same time be admitted, that all in- 
formation was studiously withholden from him ; that 
he ha-d a right to expect an official communication of 
an act which regarded his official character ; and that 
those, whose duty it was to convey such communica- 
tion, were most shamefully negligent. Were we speak- 
ing of the public law of the land, or of an act of the 
legislature, whose acts alone are presumed to be uni- 
versally known, the plea of ignorance would not avail. 
Nay, an act of the legislature itself, by which an indi- 
vidual \s affected, is never recognized, until the party 
immediately concerned can produce it and claim the 
benefits of it. I repeat it, without danger of contra- 
diction, that the act of any other body, whether civil 
or religious ; whether it relate to a charge of guilt, or 
of neglect, or to a claim of right ; would not be recog- 
nised in any court of justice, unless the party affected 
by it had formal notice of the act. It is absurd to say 
that a member of any society (except of civil society 
at large) must necessarily be informed of an act by 
which he may be affected, but which took place during 
his absence, and after he had expected to be no 
longer a member. Were it not for the almost una- 
voidable want of information on the part of bishop 
Provoost ; had he been made acquainted (as he ought 
to have been) with the proceedings of the two conven- 
tions ; I venture to say, that he would long ago have 
resumed the reins of government in this diocese, and 
thereby prevented all those calamities under which we 
are now groaning. 

To say, as Dr. Hobai t does, that bishop Moore 
{ 'has for ten years presided in all our conventions, 
and has exercised complete jurisdiction/' is only to 
sav — that bishop M. has for ten years been guilty of 
usurpation. But does usurpation constitute lawful 
authority? Will Dr. Hobart assert that it does ? The 
proverb is — that possession is nine points of the law, 
out of ten : but, according to this novel doctrine, posses- 



[ 41 ] 



sion is ten points out of ten : the doctrine is worthy 
of the preacher, and is admirably calculated for the 
meridian of those who regard him as aiv orucie of 
w isdom. 

This remark brings to my recollection another sin- 
gular hypothesis advance d by the same innovator : it 
is this: — ".bishop Provoost, even admitting h$m to be 
diocesan bishop has no right to inie<{e.e in any parti- 
cular case, to arrest or to annul any proceedings of the 
assistant bishop, canonically begun, or completed." 
Wnat our learned divine wou?d imp'y by arresting 
proceedings that have been completed, I am at a !oss to 
understand : but I know that the assertion, is, in gene- 
ral, a barefaced outrage of all decency, and bids defi* 
ance to the powers of argument. In plain English it 
amounts to this : — Bishop Provoost, even if acknow- 
ledged to be superior in authority and power, cannot 
interfere with any proceedings of his inferior : were 
his assistant to embark in aa act, ever so illegal, or 
unjust, or cruel, or unconstitutional, or unchristian, 
he has only to say — I have begun my work of ini- 
quity, you must let me complete it — and the bishop 
has no right to interpose his authority or to arrest the 
progress. If there are any readers, whose mental ap- 
petites are calculated to digest such coarse fo jd as this, 
they are welcome to all the comforts of the repast : for 
my own part. I confess that I am too fastidious to envy 
them their enjoyment. 

Thus have I, without any preconcerted arrangement 
of plan, and with all that freedom and plainness of ex- 
pression which the subject requires, examined the 
alleged act of bishop Provoost's resignation. To all 
episcopalians, whether in or out of the state, it is doubt- 
less a most important inquiry— Who is the bishop of 
this diocese ? I scruple not to assert of Dr. Provoost, 
that he is the man : and 1 call upon Dr. Hobart, the 
vestry of Trinity church, and the rest of his partizans, 
singly or unitedly, to disprove the assertion, on logical 
or legal grounds. I am perfectly '>f opinion with the 
right rev. house of bishops, that the contemplated re- 



[ 42 ] 



signation was not an effectual resignation ; that it was 
only an abortive attempt to resign ; that his resigna- 
tion (under all the circumstances of it) would have 
b en inconsistent with ecclesiastical order, with the 
practice of episcopal churches in all ages, and \\ ith the 
tenour of his consecration- vows ;* that the house of 
bishops would have betrayed the sacred trust com- 
mitted to them, had they recognized the act ; and that 
they discharged their duty, as vigilant guardians of the 
welfare of the church, when they determined to dis- 
countenance such an attempt at innovation. Such is 
ni) firm conviction, and such are the grounds on which 
my conviction rests.. 

To those who admit my premises and conclusions, 
it must satisfactory appear — that it cannot be incum- 
bent on bishop Provoost to resume formally, what he 
never laid down effectual *y ; and that he mutt still be, 
What he has never ceased to be, the rightful diecesan 
bishop of the P. E. church in the state of New York. 

If I have not put forth half my strength on this occa- 
sion, it is because I conceive that the occasi n cahs 
for no vast exertion. It is to be presumed that my 
services will again be wanted in the field of contro- 
versy. The times are gloomy, if not perilous : and 
the period may not be very distant, when the exertion 
of all our talents (aye, and of a;l our fortitude toe) will 
be imperiously demanded. May God be pleased to 
preserve us from the effects of that vindictive spirit, 
which is now working in the bosoms of some of our 
preachersf of righteousness ! And may He either per- 
mit us to be gathered unto our fathers in peace, or else 
enable us to support all the threatened horrors of the 
stake ! Were the author of these sheets known to the 

* Bishop Claggett has recently requested the convention of his diocese 
to give him an assistant ; and he observed at the time, that were it not for 
these reasons he would wish to resign Bishop C. was one of the bishops 
who gave the important decision in the General Convention at Trenton. 

f See a late: pamphlet, written with all the rage and malice of one .who 
is "going about, seeking whom he may devour," entitled — The truth, ttte 
whole truth, and nothing but the trutht 



[ 43 ] 



officers of our new inquisition, it is probable that he 
would be mide the first offering to the flames: or, 
m ore probably, he w-mld fall a victim to the noiseless 
steel of some infuriate midnight assassin. Already 
has Dr. Harris been menaced with a halter, Mr. Jones 
with a dagger, and Mr. Ireland with a bludgeon : 
hence the necessity of sheltering myself undei the 
target of anonymy, and of resuming the signature of 

VINDEX. 



APPENDIX, &c. 

When I sat down to vindicate the right of bishop 
Provoost to episcopal jurisdiction in his own diocese, I' 
endeavoured to divest myself of all partiality and preju- 
dice ; and had therefore firmly resolved not to inter- 
fere in the particular case of Mr. Jones. But I have 
since been induced by cogent reasons to d part from 
that resolution. Dr. Hobart, after devoting one third 
of his Statement to prove that the bishop is not the 
bishop, employs the remaining two thirds in proving, 
that the late proceedings against Mr. Jones were reg- 
ular, canonical, and valid. Those who have honoured 
the foregoing pages with an attentive perusal, will pro- 
bably think, that after having rep.ied to the ybrwe-r part 
ol that Statement, I was bound not to leave the tatter 
part wholly unnoticed. Dr. H. has, indeed, so blended 
the cases of bishop P. and Mr. J. that they are now 
become almost inseparable : and I have no wish to put 
asunder what that gentleman has. thought fit to join to- 
gether. The case of Mr. J. is also of such a nature, 
as to claim the attention of every episcopalian, layman 
as well as clergyman, in the United States: no. do I 
conceive that any friend to the civil rights of our citi- 
zens, any friend to order, justice, and equity, ought 



[ 44 ] 

to regard it with indifference. It is big with mischiefs, 
portentous, incalculably portentous. There is in it 
more, much mo;e than meets the eye at the first glance. 
It strikes at the root of every episcopal clergyman's 
independence in this country. It is an entering wedge, 
which threatens to rive the heart of ihe P. E. church, 
arid to spiit her members into parties and factions. It 
is the beginning of sorrows, which will prey upon her 
vita;s, «nd must bring her prematurely to decay. It 
exhibits af u iher proof, that nothing short of absolute 
autoeracy will satisfy our Inquisitor General ; and that 
private feelings, private character, private families, 
and the public good, a e all p r o<jtrated by him with 
equal disregard, in his high bounding career of ambi- 
tion. It is indeed a most alarming, a most awful case, 
and ought to be investigated and understood by every 
prof . ssor of humanity and religion. Such are the 
considerations which have induced me to abandon n*y 
previous resoluion, and to give the case to the public 
in all it - native deformity. 

Mr. H bart and Mr. jones were engaged by Trinity 
chu-ch (.r I am rightly informed) at the same period. 
It appears fiom their publications, thai some jealousies 
respecting rank or pecedency had early begun to 
agiute their bosoms : and jealousy, when it once be- 
comes a tenant of the human breast, is neither easiiy 
no s on expelled. They therefore continued to re- 
gard each other with a suspicious eye ; and an ambigu- 
ous word, or even an indirect look, was enough to 
kindle the flame of open dissention between them. 
After repeated instances of incorrect deportment on 
the part of Mr. H bart (who was always the aggressor) 
Mr. Jones resorted to the precaution of making tneniOr 
randa of certain acts and conversations, to which he 
attached importance. Whether Mr. H. took any 
notes, in imitation of his co, league, is not ascertained : 
if he did, I think the public would be hugely gratified 
by a sight of his own record of his own disgraceful al- 
tercations and squabbles; altercations, which took 
plate at funerals, after prayers, in the church, at the 



[ 45 ] 



altar, and upon the most solemn occasions ! Squnb- 
bles, whicii would have disgraced a school hoy, and 
whicu then, iff known, would have rendered him con- 
temptible in the eyes oi his present admirers! A -d yet 
this gentleman Jias the assurance to boast of his im- 
peccability, and to swear that " in naught has he of- 
fended!"' 

Mr. Jones, however averse he might be to Mr. Ho- 
ban's perpetual attempts at encroachment, does not 
appear to have been as much goaded by ambition, as 
his competitor. The former expressed no uneasiness 
when the latter w is promo :ed to a doctoral i nor did 
he mike any efforts (altrnugh he had fur superior 
claim >) to obtain a simiiar badge of distinction. If he 
was, indeed, greedy of popularity, he took none of the 
customary steps to gratify his desires : he retired to 
a small distance irom the city, and left to his colleague 
every opportunity of ingratiating himself with the citi- 
zens, and of recommending himself to the country 
clergymen who occasionally visited the metropolis. 
In availing himself of such opportunities, Dr II. acted 
prudently and wisely : and Joneses greatest error 
lies, in having neglected those means of advancing 
himself in the esteem of the public, which the other so 
sedulously improved. But his neglect shews that 
Mr. J. was not (as some have wickedly insinuated) the 
rival of Dr. H. for preferment, or that he was equally 
the slave of ambition. If he was (as his enemies pre- 
tend) ambitious of an advancement above his peers, 
he took the most effectual method of defeating his own 
designs, by abandoning the theatre to his competitor. 

The character of Dr. B. M ort requires not now to 
be portrayed : the account of him, already given to the 
world by Dr. Hobart in his letter to the vestry, suMi-- 
ciently evinces the state of subjugation to which he 
had been reduced, by the omnipotence of Dr. Hobart's 
influence over him. Dr. M. had been persuaded to 
discard from his confidence all those who would have 
proved faithful to him, and no one was permitted, to 
approach his council-board without a passport from 



[ 46 ] 

the prime minister. Had that minister been disposed 
to be honest to the trust reposed in him, he possessed, 
perhaps, talents enough for such a station : for he is 
nor destitute of any of the arts of insinuation, and few 
men of bis age are better acquainted vj'ith the various 
avenues to the hearts of weak men. But, unhappily 
for his principal, he had nothing in view but succes- 
sion to the mi re ; and his wiiole efforts were bent to 
render his master's administration contemptible and 
odious, and thus prepare the public to look for a bless- 
ing, in any change that might take place. 

Whiie things were thus 'situated, a favourable op- 
portunity of advancing his grand design presented it- 
self. By a stroke of the palsy bishop Moore was ren- 
dered incapable of disc haigingany official duties. The 
favourite seized with avidity the auspicious moment. 
He either in person or by his emissaries beset the house 
of the sick bkhop, and forbade the intrusion of every one 
who was not well known to be subservient to his own 
views. He importuned the feeble bishop to call a spe- 
cial convention, fur the purpose of choosing an assist- 
ant : and when his ceaseless importunities evidently 
became troublesome, he di patched Dr. Bouden, Mr. 
Wilkins, and others of the fraternity, to reiterate and 
enforce the request. These gentlemen, by represent- 
ing the bishop's indisposition in aggravated terms, by 
ala ming his enfeebled mind, lest the episcopal succes- 
si n should fail, and by extolling the qualifications of 
the man who employed them, at length prevailed on 
the .rresolute sick prelate to direct the convention to be 
summoned.* 

In the mean time, Dr. Hobart, conscious of the as- 
cendency that he h d gained over the declining bishop, 
confident that the besieged must eventual iy surrender 
at discretion, lost not a moment in improving the con- 

* The indecency of Dr. H's. conduct, in thus urging a measure ■which 
was to effect his elevation, when he knew that the measure was thought 
by Dr. Beach and the most judicious clergymen of the diocese, to be pre- 
cipitate and improper, will never be obliterated from the remembrance of 
those gentlemen. And yet "in naught has he offended!" 



i 47 ] 



templated event. He either wrote, or directed others 
to write, to all the clergymen in the diocese, iequcst- 
ing their punctual attendance at the approaching con- 
vention ; and assuring them that Dr. H. had been 
unanimously recommended as assistant hish p by his 
brethren in New-Yo k, and that there Would be no 
competition. The same contrivance to ensure his 
election was practise d on several of the most influen- 
tial laymen in different remote parishes. At this pe- 
riod, Mr. Jone>, who had abundant reason to believe 
that Dr. H. did not possess a single qualification for 
the oflice of a bishop, conscientiously iesolved to op- 
pose his elevation. Mr J. was herein actuated by the 
most honourable, pure, and disinterested motives ; he 
preferred no claims of his ov. n ; he objected to no man 
wh>m he deemed wo thy ; nor would he have objected 
to Dr. H. had he not known him to be totally destitute 
or the required virtues. He knew that so far from 
being " blameless," there v/ere several persons of re- 
spectability ready to szvear, that he had maliciously and' 
falsely accused one of his brethren. He knew him to 
be a * brawler, a novice, lifted up with pride," and 
therefore liable to "fall into the condemnation of the 
devil." He knew, that so far from '* having a good 
report of them which are without," he was lying under 
the public " reproach" of intolerance, bitterness of 
spu it, persecution and tyranny. He knew — he knew 
enough, and too much. Would Mr. J. be entitled to 
the character of an honest man, if, knowing as much 
as he did, he had si ent!y acquiesced in the promotion 
of Dr. H. to episcopal dignity ? I trow not. 

A very erroneous opinion has gone abroad, that Mr. 
J. had formal charges to exhibit against Dr. H. and 
th t instead of bringing them before an ecclesiastical 
(the only proper) tribunal, he resorted to the unjusti- 
fiable method of arraigning him at the bar of the pub- 
lic. M-. J. had no intention (<f I am well informed) 
of bringing any formal charges against Dr. H. in his 
private character. Had Dr H consented to remain 
«n a level with his brethren; had he not persoiiahV 



[ 43 ] 



insulted Dr. Beach for hinting at his own expectation 
of the approaching mitre,; had he not openly avowed 
his power to cru$h all opposition ; had he not flown in 
the face of all decency on the occasion ; Mr. J. would 
never have indulged a thought of publicly accusing 
him, strongly as he was urged so to do by feelings of 
resentment. But when it was discovered, that syste- 
matic arrangement - had been nude for placing an un- 
worthy man at the head of this extensive diocese ; that 
a majority of the clergy stood already pledged to sup- 
port him ; and that several influential laymen in the 
city had joined the confede anon ; he had no alterna- 
tive, but to submit in silence to the disgrace, or to 
" cry aloud and spare not." He therefore published 
his Solemn Appeal, in the hope that his warning voice 
would reach those at a distance who might yet be un- 
contaminated, and caution others against the danger 
of precipitance. 

And what was there in that publication to draw 
down on its author the abuse, the execration, the pun- 
ishment, and the further threats of Dr. H. and his par- 
tizans? Is there an)' law, civil or religious, which for- 
bids a christian minister to publish a bonk for the in- 
formation of those among whom he officiates ? If Dr. 
Hobart had, ten years ago, apprehended that this dio- 
cese was in danger of being subjected to the care of 
an unworthy bishop, would he not have strained every 
nerve to rescue us from the impending evil and dis- 
grace ? When other means had failed, would he not 
have stepped forth in print? Has he not exercised this 
privilege repeatedly ? Has he not, by some of his in. 
discreet writings, " made us to be a proverb and a 
by- word among the people ?" Has he- not published 
more pamphlets than Mr. J. on the subject of the pre- 
sent dispute ? * Has he not violated his word, solemn, 
ly pledged to Dr. Johnson* and others, not to publish 
on this occasion ? Nay, is it not too notorious that he 
nas, by his> voluminous publications, dibgusted and 

* The late President of Columbia college. 



C 49 ] 



driven from our communion, many of its most pious 
members? Whatever evil ma have re ulted from 
Mr. J.'s Appeal, it cannot be disputed that Dr. H.'s 
subsequent w ritings have aggravated the evil an hun- 
d ed f Id. There are many who believe (and I am 
one o the number) hat had not Dr. H. attempted to 
su bstantiate his innocence, he would never have ap- 
peared so criminal as he now d' es ; and that party- 
spirit would never have risen to its present enormous 
height, had he abided by his solemn promise to be 
silent. It is idle therefore to ex«ite a clamour against 
Mr. J. on account of his Appeal : it was not the Ap- 
peal^ it was the impolitic and lame answer to it, diat 
generated a-i these mischiefs which have since disturbed 
the church,and disgusted the public. But it seems that, 
according to the ptoverb, one man shall be pardoned for 
stealing a horse out of a field, while another shall be hang- 
ed for only looking over the hedge ! Had Mr. J, publish- 
ed any thing that was false respecting Dr. H. 's unfitness 
for the episcopate, he had his choice of remedies ; he 
might indeed have availed himself of two : — the courts 
of justice were open to him — and he might alio have 
procured a presentment of Mr. J. to the bishop. Why 
did not Dr. H. instead of raising a public outcry upon 
all occasions against Mr. Jones, avail himself of these 
obvious modes of redress ? The answer is — because 
in either case the truth must have been admitted in 
evidence, and it was the suppression, not the disclos- 
ure, of truth, that would best subserve his views. 

But if Mr. Jones's Appeal produced no evil, it cer- 
tainly effected no good : I mean to say, that it did not 
effect that kind of good, which the author expected to 
result from it. Dr. H. was but feebly opposed, and he 
was elected by a large majority to the singular office of 
an assistant- bishop's-assistant. This event Mr. J. 
ought indeed to have anticipated. He was aware that 
Dr. H. had wrought up the vestry of Trinity church 
to a resolution of supporting him " per fas aut nefas ;" 
and he must have known that the numerous depend- 
ents on that body would not dare to run counter to 

G 



[ 50 ] 



their instructions, whatever might be their conviction 
cr inclination : hence he might have foretold, with 
the nicest precision, the number of votes, which 
the favourite of the vestry would obtain from such 

electors. 

It is incessantly urged by persons of a certain de- 
scription, that if Mr. Jones had been actuated by a 
regard for the reputation and peace of the church, he 
would have stated to the convention his objections to 
the character and conduct of Dr. Hobart, and left them 
to judge of his demerits. Would to God that the 
proceedings of that convention had never been made 
public, or that the record of them could be blotted 
out forever! I shall not here insist on the illegality of 
calling that convention; altho' it was neither " such 
a regulation as expediency had dictated, to the church 
in New- York," nor was it "with the concurrence of 
bishop Provoost :" it was therefore illegally convened, 
and all its proceedings are invalid. But this is not the 
place in which to press this point : my immediate ob- 
ject is to meet the foregoing objection — that Mr. J. 
ought to have exhibited his charges to the convention. 
It is a fact, placed beyond the reach of dispute, that 
such an exhibition was impracticable. It was abso- 
lutely impossible for Mr. Jones, or for any others who 
thought as he did, to introduce before the convention 
the subject of Dr. Hobai t's disqualifications, or even 
to mention his namj. Every attempt at a distant al- 
lusion to that gentleman, or to his conduct, or to the 
charges that had been publicly brought against him, 
or to his contemplated election, (although his election 
was the specific object of the meetingj every such 
a! tempt was combated by clamour, by vehemence, 
by interruption, by incessant calls to order : as if it 
were disorderly to discuss the merits of a candidate 
for an office, which they were specially called to fill ! 
Since the day that a saint " was numbered with the 
eleven apostles," down to the period when Dr JrJ. was 
chosen to a seat in the college of bishops, surely never 
was a bishop elected with so total a disregard of all 



C 51 ] 



recedent, usage, decency, and order! The electors 
ere informed, that every man, that any man, be his 
haracter what it may, was alike eligible ; and that 
ley might choose for their bishop a Justus, or a Mat- 
lias, or (if they preferred him) a second Judas Isca- 
lot. Good God ! in what terms will the future faith, 
ll historian record the transactions of that memorable 
ay ! What will posterity think of those unprecedented 
roceedings of men, whose proud boast it is to have 
ved in the most enlightened age of the world ! I 
ludder, when I review. the conduct of a body of ec- 
'esiastics, professing *' an undeviating adherence to 
rinciples which they have inherited from the parent 
hurch," and yet proceeding in open violation of the 
sages of that, and of every other, church ! Could I draw 
veil over such conduct, and hide it from the view of 
iture generations, scarcely any sacrifice for so desira- « 
le an object would I deem too great. But alas ! all 
ly wishes to conceal it are as unavailing, as were the 
forts of Mr. Jones and his friends to prevent an " un- 
odly man from being set over them." My indignant 
:elings will not allow me to dwell on this part of the 
ibjcct. 

After Dr. H. had been elected by the convention, 
ie fairest possible opportunity was presented to him 
lad a spark of decent respect for the opinion of the 
ublic lurked in his breast) of attempting to wash out 
vne of the stains that had sullied his character. Be- 
ides the numerous charges brought against him by 
lr. Jones (not one of which has hitherto been refuted) 
e stood publicly criminated of having wantonly, cru- 
lly, maliciously, falsely accused a brother clergy- • 
lan of forgery. He knew that the charge stood sup- 
orted (as it still does) by the oaths of (n o respectable 
entlemen ; and that the affidavits of others* whenever 
squired, were ready to be produced. Here, a pru- 

* If (he oaths of two respectable men should be ^bought insufficient to 
ibstantiate a charge of <uilt, the oaths of ethers (nOT hostile to the char- 
;terofDr. H.) are ready to oc produced, whenever the occasion tpay 
.•quire. - 



t v 3 



dent, a modest man, would have paused. He would, 
immediately af er his election, have said — Gentlemen, 
Isincesely thank you for this evidence of your good 
opinion, for th;s proof that you do not consider me as 
so base and unprincipled as my calumniators have re- 
presented me to be : — But, before I enter on the duties 
o; t'>a; sacred office to which you have elected me, I 
mu st prove to the satisfaction of the whole world, that 
I have " washed my hands in innocency :" I must* 
prove myself to be, what " a bishop must be, blame- 
less:" — I " must have a good report of them also 
which are without, lest I fall into reproach." — Had 
Dr. H. taken this precaution (and would it not have 
suggested itself to any man of ordinary discretion ?) 
either he would have approached the episcopate with 
clean hands and an untarnished reputation, and com- 
pletely prostrated his accusers; or else, the chaiges 
against him would have been substantiated, and our 
chuich been rescued from the obloquy and reproaches 
of them which are ivithout, as well as from the accumu- 
lating dissatisfaction of thousands zvithin. How it hap- 
pened, that none oi Dr. H.'s friends proposed this obvi. j 
ous expedient to him ; or how, sitting in the more imme- 
diate presence of Gcd, they could solemnly aver (in the 
face of "charges that were not anonymous, nor insigni- 
ficant, nor made by persons unworthy of credit") that 
he was not, so far as they were informed, justly liable 
to evil report; I shall not here inquire: it is a point to 
be settled berveen themselves, their consciences, and 
their Gcd. If those who elected Dr. H. were actuated 
by pure and honourable motives, I cannot conceive 
that his opponents were impelled by mo.ives less pure, 
les ; honourable, in their disapprobation of him : they 
had the best opportunities of ascertaining the man's 
real character ; not one of them had any eye to the 
new dignity ; nor would they have opposed any one 
of their brethren, whom they could have esteemed and 
respected as th^jr spiritual superior. 

" Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy 
might," is a favourite text with Dr. Hobart ; who has 



[ .53 ] 



frequently experienced the advantage of striking while 
the iron is heated. He therefore hastened, with his 
red-hot credentials, to meet the general convention at 
New-Haven, in order to obtain die stamp of their 
approval. The rnembers of that convention, little dis- 
posed to enter into the petty disputes of this diocese; 
persuaded, that the members of the church here were 
competent to decide on the merits of those whom they 
might choose to preside over them ; without much hesi- 
tation, without inquiring in what manner the election 
of Dr. Hobart h id been conducted, or what objections 
to his character had been advanced, proceeded to sign 
his testimonials. The author (universally supposed to 
be Dr. H. himself) of Remarks on G.iv. Jav's letter, 
triumphantly asko — " Is it possible, that conventions, 
composed of respectable lay characters, and of respecta- 
ble clergy, and also the bishops* of the church, join- 
ed in a measure precipitate and unseasonable ?" Not* 
withstanding all the remarks that I have hitherto seen, 
I apprehend that such a thing is very possible, and that 
such was the fact. I mean not to cast the slightest 
dishonourable reflection on the honourable or right 
honourable,! on the reverend or right reverend mem- 
bers of that convention. 1 know by what motives they 
were actuated, and on what principles they acted ; but 
I am most egregiously deceived if some of them have 
not since, both thought and said, that the measure was 
precipitate and unseasonable. It remains for time to 
dcvtlope, whether they will not all (.with the exception 
perhaps of Dr. White) concur in tnis opinion. 

The mock consecration of Dr. H. immediately fol- 
lowed his surreptitious election. Not a moment was 
left for breathing. Hurry-skurry was the word; and 
pageantry and parade (it was presumed) would serve 

* The bishops of the church had nothing' to do with the measure : when 
Mr. Hobart was duly recommended to them, they could do no more than 
proceed to his consecration, or state their objections; as they did in the 
case of Dr. B. Meore. 

j- Dr. H. takes infinite pains to let us know the precise number of his 
friends in the convention, whose names are entitled to the affix of Honour, 
able. Yet many of those frenilemen have too much sense to lay anv claire 
to such anti-republic?.n distinction. 



t 54 ] 



ias adequate substitutes for decency and order. Nay, 
such was the precipitate ardour to confer dignity on 
one of the candidates, lest some person should rise up 
in the congregation and oppose the proceedings,* that 
the very words by which the episcopal authority is 
conveyed were omitted, and the ceremony was per- 
formed (according to Dr. White's account) before the 
requisite number of bishops had assembled. Tell it 
not in Gath ! Alas, the disgraceful truth has already 
been promulgated, and it is now too late to attempt to 
conceal it from " them that are without !" 

No sooner was Dr. H. confirmed (as he vainly ima- 
gined) in his new stall, than he gave vent to the ran- 
corous fermentation in his breast. He mounted every 
piece of artillery that he could bring to bear on Mr. 
Jones and his friends ; and round, and double-headed, 
and canister, and langridge, and many other ungodly 
kinds of shot, were made to fly at the heads and limbs 
of these devoted victims. Havoc was now the word, and 
exterminating war was loudly proclaimed at the cor- 
ner of every street. 

It. is not my intention to enter into a detail of the 
skirmishes that have already happened. The cam- 
paign has but commenced, and the God of battles can 
alone tell how it will terminate. Here, then, let us for 
a moment pause, survey the combatants, and contem- 
plate coolly the origin of the contest. 

Mr. Jones had experienced many provocations and 
personal insults frem Dr. Hobart. He had, among 
others, been required to abandon the society of certain 
clerical friends, and to abstain from those amicable in- 
terchanges of pulpits, which all clergymen are in the 
habit of supporting with their respected brethren. Mr. 
Jones very properly resisted the imperious demands of 
his colleague, and manfully determined to be inde- 
pendent of all improper control. Words begat anger ; 
animosity generated rancour ; and mutual resentment 

* One of the officiating' bishops was prepared to expect that such a» 
event would take place s in which case he had firmly resolved t& quit th» 
«hurch> and leave the ceremony unfinished. 



[ 55 ] 



terminated in mutual resolutions of hostility. Dr. H. '» 
avowed claim to preferment was the signal for attack. 
Mr. Jones, who felt himself equal to the conflict, so 
long as his adversary remained on a level with him, 
determined, if possible, to deprive him of the contem- 
plated advantage of higher ground. He did not, how> 
ever, succeed in the attempt : Dr. H. was elected to 
the dignity of a bishop, and Mr. J. became, of course, 
subordinate to him. Here, had the new dignitary 
possessed a spark of magnanimity, he had an oppor-. 
tunity of displaying it : he would, by his deportment 
towards M. Jones, have said — Your feeble efforts to 
injure me have been unavailing ; I pity your weak- 
ness ; I pardon your hostile attempts ; I will endea- 
vour to forget all that is past ; and my future con- 
duct towards an offending brother shall convince your- 
self and your misguided friends, that I am worthy of 
the holy station to which I have been exalted. — This 
Mould, indeed., have been dignified deportment : it 
would have disarmed his every foe, and compelled the 
most incredulous to confess, that they had been con- 
tending with " a man after God's own heart." Of the 
propriety of such demeanour Dr. H. was once con- 
scious: for he repeatedly, about the period of his con- 
secration, gave the most solemn assurances that he 
would molest neither Mr. Jones, nor his friends ; and 
that all his efforts should be directed to the restoration 
and maintenance of peace in the church. How well 
he has kept his word, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Jones's 
friends, and Mr. Jones's enemies, and every other 
member of the church can testify. 

The principal battery which Dr. H. opened upon 
his enemy was the corporation of Trinity church. 
That body, supported by such an influence as is ne- 
cessarily connected with an annual income of 300,000 
dollars, may be said to exercise something like omni- 
potence over the church in this state. Its influence 
indeed, in ecclesiastical concerns, extends to the ut- 
most limits of the Union. This formidable body cor- 
porate enlisted under the banners of Dr. Hobart, and 



[ 56 1 



soon took the field against Mr. Jones. They began 
their operations by expressing their displease at his 
Solemn Appeal. ■ In order to par. y this attack, he sup- 
pressed the sale of it. The} then filed a formal com- 
plaint, that a cont oversy of a serious nature, of such 
a nature that it could not be setth d by the parties th em- 
selvts, existed between them and Mr. Jones; and 1 equest- 
ed that the bishop wt uld interpose his authority, so as 
to dissolve the connecvi n. Wnen Mr. Jones wa* serv- 
ed with a copy of this complaint and r. quest, he very 
naturally addressed himself to the bishop, who declared 
himself ignorant of any such application. Mr. J. was, 
however, soon informed that the complaint had been 
lodged, not with the bishop, but with the bishop's 
assistant. He then drew up a remonstrance, denied 
the existence of any such con' rove- sy as was alleged, 
and entered a formal protest against further p; oceed- 
ings. The bishop's assistant, alarmed at this spirited 
and unexpected step, applied to the vestry of Trinity 
church for further instructions. The vestry directed 
him to proceed. He accordingly summoned Mr. J. to 
appear before him on the 5th. of Nov. last, when the 
complaint of the vestry would be discussed before a 
board of presbyters, and a decision given. Having 
consulted the bishop once more, and been advised by 
him to pay no regard to the assistant and his presbyters, 
Mr. J. entered a second protest against the validity of 
the proposed board, and accompanied it by a copy of 
the bishops s advice. The assistant bishop and his as- 
sembled presbyters paid, however, no attention to either 
Mr. Jones's protest or the bishop 9 $ letter ; but pro- 
ceeded to consider — not whether the complaint was 
well or ill founded — not whether the alleged contro- 
versy did or did not exist — not whether the controversy 
was or was not of such a nature that it could not be 
settled bv the parties themselves — not whether the 
case did or did not come under any existing law of the 
church — but the terms on which \\\t demanded dissolu- 
tion was to take place. Mr. J. did ri t, of course, ac- 
cede to the terms ; and this unauthorised " caucus, 



C 57 ] 



with all the powers of which they were possessed, pass- 
ed on him a sentence of suspension.*' 

The limits of my present undertaking will not per- 
mit me to enter into a detail of the particulars con- 
nected with this unparalleled case. My object is, 
briefly to state its rise, progress, and termination ; and 
to make some general remarks on its probable conse- 
quences, both to individuals and to the church at large. 
If Mr. Jones can obtain no redress of the outrages 
lately committed against him, either from an ecclesias- 
tical or a civil tribunal, then would I not give a nutshell 
for the independence of all the episcopal clergymen in 
the United States : and if die lay-members of the 
church will submit to see their ministers thus trampled 
upon, maltreated, dragooned, and plundered, let them 
bid a long adieu to every hope of a respectable minis* 
try among them. 

And yet there is not a single step in the whole of the 
unrighteous proceedings against Mr. Jones, which Dr. 
Hobart does not presume to justify. Great Gcd ! that 
there should be found, in this country, a preacher of 
tke benevolent gospel of Christ, to countenance, pub- 
licly to countenance, tyranny, oppression, persecution, 
inhumanity, ungodliness and wrong ! 

Dr. H. maintains that a controversy did actually 
subsist between Mr. Junes and the vestry of Trinity- 
church : and yet, strange as it may appear, not the 
slightest shadow of proof can be produced ; nor is it to 
this day known, to either of the parties, what the sub- 
ject of the controversy was. Mr. Jones did, indeed, deny 
the existence of any such controversy ; and this denial 
Dr. H. twists into a proof that a controversy did exist : 
as if a difference of opinion constituted a controversy, 
and of such a nature too, that it cannot be settled ! Ad- 
mirable logician ! What a charming assistant he would 
make to the profound professor of moral science iri 
Columbia college ! 

] )r. H. says, that the vestry had no prospect of any 
apology from Mr. Jones. Apology! For what? Did 
they call on him to make any apology ? Would an apor 

H 



C 58 J 



logy have settled the difference between them? How 
then could the vestry and Dr. H. declare, that the con- 
t;oversy was of such a nature that it could not be set- 
tled between the parties themselves ? Admirable again ! 

But the vestry were reso'ved not to set'le it, and 
therefore it could not be setned. Episcopal clergy- 
men, do you hear this, and do you hear it without 
indignation and abhorrence? However respectable you 
may be, and however acceptable to nine tenths of your 
congregations, any individual (whether belonging to 
your parish or not) has only to poison the minds of a 
majority of your vestry ; who, if they are so deter- 
mined* will represent that a controversy of a nature not 
to be settled, exists between you and Themselves ; 
your denial of any such controversy wi ; l be ample 
proof of its existence ; and you are gone, irremediably 
gone ! Your vestry zvill not settle the difference, and 
therefore it cannot be settled, except by your dismis- 
sion ! You hold your character, your living, your 
support, your existence, by the precarious tenure of 
the will of an individual, and of such presbyters as 
that individual may select to decide upon your case ! 

" The solemn decision of the vestry, that difleren. es 
and controversies did exist," proves the existence of 
such differences ! Admirable, ence mote ! ,A resolu- 
tion of the vestry .hen, can prove any thing ! Would 
to God that they would exercise their potency again, 
and p,:ss another lvsolu ion to this effect — that Dr. H. 
is a man of veracity, candour, modesty, humility), and 
forbearance ; and that the Utmost harmony subsists un- 
der his administration among all the members of the 
church, b th clergy and teitj .' — How could such a 
resolution fail to produce a consummation so devoutly 
to be wished? 

" The resolution of the vestry was of itself evidence, 
that an amicable adjustment was not to be expected." 
But does the S2d. canon apply to cas^s in wi.ich an 
adjustment is not to be expected ? If I understand its 
import, its operation is confined to such controversies 
as cannot possibly be settled by the parties themselves; 



1 



C 59 ] 



neither of whom can justifiably apply for the interpo- 
sition of the cation, until it has been positively ascer- 
tained, by the failure of repeated efforts, that no ad- 
jus ment can be effected. Was there, in the case of 
M. . Jones, a si?igle attempt made to settle the supposed 
c utroversy? An apology wrud have sufficed, and 
yet no steps were taken even to obtain an apology. 
Why ? Because an amicable settlement would not have 
answered the purpose oi'his implacable fee : " the door 
of '(-conciliation was to be shut at once ; Mr. Jones 
must teave the city; Mr. Jones must leave the di- 
ocese!'' 

" Mr. Jones, by denying that any controversy ex- 
ist d between the vestry arid himself, and by protest- 
ing against their proceedings as informal, irregular, 
and unauthorised by the canon, created a n:w su' ject of 
difference." There is not in Mr. Hobart's Statement 
a pas sage, which on account of its originality so much 
demands the reader's attention; or which, on account 
of the atrocity of the sentiment conveyed in it, so loud- 
ly calls for the writer's animadversion ; as this. It is 
palpably the offspring of the subtlety and sophistry of 
that 4 only one clerical friend," who saw the State- 
ment in manuscript. The vestry complain to the bi- 
shop that there is a difference between Mr. Jones and 
themselves. Mr. J. protests to the bishop that there is 
no difference. But, says Dr. Hobart, this very pro- 
test made a difference. Thus, although the bishop 
had no jurisdiction of the case when it was first pre- 
sented to him, yet no sooner had Mr. J. told him so, 
than a new difference was created, which authorised 
the bishop and his presbyters to decide on the old 
complaint! How forcibly does such conduct - remind 
us of the fable of the wolf and the lamb ! You villain, 
says the wolf, how dare you muddy the water which I 
am drinking? Sir, replies the trembling lamb, it is 
impossible that I can be guilty of the alleged offence, 
because the stream runs down from you to me. You 
are a little lying rascal, cries the disconcerted brute ; 
and I have been credibly informed, that you took the 



[ 60 ] 



liberty of abusing me about six months ago. Indeed, 
indeed, sir, says the lamb, I was nut born at that time. 
Then it must have been thy father. Alas, Sir, I have 
no ;ather. Well then, it musi have been thy grand- 
father, or great-grandfather, or some other of thy de- 
tested family, it matters not which ; for I am resolved 
to sacrifice thee to my just resentment. Reader, hast 
thou never heard of similar reasoning, since the time 
when wolves and lambs couid talk ? Heigh-ho ! 

" Who is to deteimine whether a case comes under 
• the operation of a canon ? The bishop and his presby- 
ters-" True, but did they determine in the ca^e of 
Mr. Jones? They did not : The bishop sent the pro- 
test to the vestry, and the vestry determined for him ; 
they very civilly requested that he " would be pleased 
to proceed thereon." Nay, the bishop and his piesby- 
ters ( .is their o;vn account of their proceedings testifies) 
never made it a subject of enquiry, whether there was 
any controversy , or not ; or whether it was, or was 
not, of such a nature that it could not be settled by the 
parties themselves : and Mr. Hobart, with unblushing 
eff ontery asserts, that " whether Mr. Jones was right'* 
h\ saying that there was no difference, " or the vestry' ? 
in maintaining that there was, " is of no consequence." 
In plain terms, a sic volo, sic jubeo had been issued 
by the vestry of Trinity church at the instigation of 
their master, and the trembling bishop dared not to 
disobey the imperial mandate. 

"Admitting that Mr. Jones's engagement is for 
life, yet this engagement is subject to the regulations 
of the religious society to which he and the vestry 
belong, and of course is liable, according to those reg- 
ulations, to be dissolved. " I am not disposed to con- 
trovert the truth or equity of the general principle here 
advanced : but the foregoing assertion, when fully 
explained, will develope the whole mystery of the late 
violent and unprecedented proceedings against Mr. 
Jones. If this gentleman had infringed any law of the 
religious society to which he belonged, he might very 
justly hive been dismissed by them. But the conse- 



L 61 ] 



quence would have been, that when he came to de- 
mand his salary by suit, a court of law would ■■ ave 
instituted the inquiry— whether or not he had been 
dismissed for just cause. Whereas now, wh< n Mr. 
Jones brings his action, the plea of the ve try is — y >u 
have not performed the services for which we h;^ve 
contracted with you : we never prevented your offici- 
ating : you were not dismissed by us ; you have been 
rendered incapable of discharging the duties which 
you engaged to perform, not by us, but by another 
body for whose acts we are not responsible. — This is 
the artful contrivance by which the vestry have re- 
moved Mr. Jones, by which they expect to avoid pay- 
ing his salary, and to keep out of view the mei its of 
the case. Were there any reasonable cause for dis- 
placing Mr. Jones, why did not the vestry honestly and 
openly avow it, and act accordingly ? Because it 
would not have answered the purpose proposed : be- 
cause, in that case, their acts would have been submit- 
ted to an impartial jury of our country, and the ques- 
tion would have arisen — have they proceeded against 
Mr. J. in a legal, justifiable manner? It therefore was 
more convenient to the enemies of Mr. J. to appeal to 
a tribunal, which would do their work blindfold, 
which would pronounce any sentence that might be 
dictated, reduce their victim nndhis family to poverty, 
and enab:e his persecutors to boast that a 1 this had 
been achieved without any examination into the mer- 
its of the case. This is the dark part of the plot, which 
has never been revealed except to a very f« w divines, 
and lawyers, and semi-lawyers, who were in the secret. 
A large portion of the vestry and of the presbyters 
(many of whom are honest, well-meaning men) know 
no more of what they have been doing, than an auto, 
maton knows to what purpose the wires, which move 
its limbs, are pulled. There is good ground for be- 
lieving, that when the vestry passed the first resolution 
relating to Mr. Jones's pamphlet, not more than three 
members of their body suspected that there would be 
any ulteriour proceedings. Let the vestiy men and 



[ 62 | 



the presbyters, who have been concerned in this con- 
trivance, lay their hands on their hearts, and speak as 
they will be obliged to do at the bar of divine jus tice, 
and nine tenths of them will confess that they knew 
not what they were doing. Nine tenths of them were 
totally ignorant of the canon, on which they weie 
urged to act. Nine tenths of them had never read the 
proceedings of the state or general convention. I do 
not speak on this subject from conjecture: several of 
the clerical as well as lay actors in this tragedy have 
been interrogated ; and it has been discovered, that 
when they played their respective parts, they absolutely 
knew nothing, but depended entirely on the prompter. 
Now, indeed, after repeated rehearsals,they have learn- 
ed a little by rote: but, until this very moment, few 
have understood that the grand artifice was to put Mr. 
Jones out of the way, to keep his merits and Dr. Ho- 
bart's and Mr. How's demerits out of sight, and at the 
same time to withhold Mr. Jones's salary under the 
plea, " that his engagement had been dissolved by the 
regulations of that religious society to which he be- 
longed.'' The vestiy of Trinity church have refused 
to give this gentlemen his dismission. The reason is 
obvious: — they apprehended that it would weaken the 
ground of defence which they propose to take, if they 
should be sued. Mr. J. has applied to know if ho 
should officiate as usual : to this application they have 
returned no answer. Were he a man of bulk and 
muscle ; had he been bred in a camp; were he expert 
at the bludgeon; were he possessed of such a spirit as 
actuates some of his ferocious adversaries ; I shudder 
to think what might have been the result ! he might 
have attempted to seize the pulpits by fo ce; and 
mobs, and riots, and carnage, wouid have followed to 
the very foot of our altars ! 

In running over the pages of the Statement, I have 
marked numberless passages which cry aloud for ani- 
madversion. But were I here to attempt to notice 
them all, instead of writing an appendix to a pamphlet, 
I should be compelled to write volumes. I shall there* 



[63] 

fore confine myself, for the present, to two or three of 
the remaining most objectionable remarks. 

** Jf the previous expression of an opinion is to be 
admitted as a disqualification (in a juror) the discipline 
of the church, would be subverted : even in the trial of 
a clergyman for misbehaviour, the only exception that 
can be taken against any of the presbyters, is in the pri- 
vilege which the person ptesented has to reject thi-ee 
out of the eight clergymen appointed to try him." 
Here are two distinct assertions : the former, I am per- 
suaded, has n< icher tiuih nor experience to support it : 
the latter i^ true, and a most tremendous truth it is ; 
for it goes to the length of saying (in the language of 
an eminent civilian) — " Then is an ecclesiastical tri- 
bunal the most infernal mockery of justice, that ever 
disgraced human institutions: if a man, who has expres- 
sed decided opinions on the very points Which he is to 
judge, is by the canon law regarded as an impartial 
judge, then is canon law the most diabolic al of^a 1 saws." 

" If some clergymen were disqu lifted on account 
of the expression of opinions adverse to Mr. Jones, why 
were not others, who had expressed favourable opini- 
ons, equally disqualified ? Admirable, truly ! according 
to this argument (if an argument it may be called) if 
one man on a jury, in consequence of having express- 
ed an opinion in favour of the party accused, is dis- 
qualified; then all the rest, although they have previ- 
ously made up their minds, and even expressed their 
conviction of his guilt, are competent jurors ! This 
may be ecclesiastical law : but thank God, it is only 
ecclesiastical law. In the case of Fries, who was ca- 
pitally convicted as one of the insurgents in 1799, the 
circuit court of the U. S. in Pensylvania set aside the 
verdict ; because one of the jurors had said, before the 
trial, that all the insurgents ought to be hanged, hi 
the more recent case of Col. Burr, some hundred 
jurors were rejected; not because they had expressed 
an opinion on his case, but because they acknowledged 
that they had formed an opinion on the subject to be 
brought before them. But the most common dictates 



1 64 ] 



of common sense, the most familiar ideas of justice 
and equity, long established principles, maxims and 
practices w hich have the sanction of time and experi- 
ence and which ought to apply to tvery case, are 
all disregarded and abrogated in our ecclesiastical 
courts. Heaven defend the subjects of such Jaws ! 

It may not be amiss here to direct the reader's at- 
tention to the enquiry — who sat as judge in the ca^e 
of Mr. Jones ? One of the party, nay the very head 
of the party that accused him ; Dr. B. Mooie is the 
rector of Trinity Church, and of course the principal 
member of its vestry : and yet he presided in a court 
which was to decide a cause, in which himself and 
the other members of the vestry were complainants ! 
Who selected the presbyters to try Mr. Jones ? The 
principal prosecutor. Who put the sentence of this 
extraordinary tribunal into execution ? The very man 
who instituted the charge and nominated the jury : 
thus combining in h:s own person the offices of accu- 
ser, judge and executioner ! What a specimen of the 
salutary discipline of the P. E. church! I shall take 
no notice, in this place, of the scandalous indecency of 
summoning Mr. How to sit as a juror in the case of 
Mr. Jones ; or of Mr. How's own total want of modes- 
ty in appearing at the board : the expressions of hon- 
est indignation, which never fall to accompany the men- 
tion of this circumstance, are ample proofs of the sen- 
timent that universally prevail. The only thing that 
surprizes me is, that Dr. Hobart himself did not appear 
at xhe trial in some capacity ; as judge, or as juror, or 
as counsel for the prosecution : he certainiy was as 
well qualified as Mr. How : but possibly, he had the 
vanity to think that his new mock dignity had raised 
him above a peerage. 

" The terms (says Dr. Hobart) of Mr. Jones's dis- 
missal we e not previously fixed." How much credit 
is due to this dashing assertion, let the reader judge 
from the fo {Sowing fact : — The instrument, to whicn 
Dr. H. alludes, is headed New- York, the 5th of Oclo. 
ber : and it is so stated by Mr. Jones in his printed ac» 



[65 1 



count of the transaction. Yet the summons for Mr. 
Jones's attendance was not issued until ten days after 
the instrument of his dismission had been drawn up ; 
and the formal examination of his case did. not take 
piace until tzoenly days more had elapsed. Does not 
this look as if " the terms had been previously fixed," 
as if the arrangement was pr econcerted, and the instru- 
ment already prepared? " Quousque tandem abutere, 
Catilina, patientia nostra ? Quern ad finem sese effre- 
nata jactabit audacia ? 

" The instrument does not profess to be the pro- 
ceedings of all the presbyters." I maintain that it do s : 
and let the candid reader judge between us. After re- 
citing that Mr. Jones had been summoned to appear ' 
before Bishop Moore and his presbyiers, that is — be- 
fore all his presbyters — it proceeds to say, *f at which 
place we the said bishops and his presbyters, who have 
subscribed these presents, were duly assembled ; and 
we, the said bishops and his presbyters, having advised 
together, it appears to us, &c." . Now d ;es not this 
profess to state who were assembled on the occasion ? 
Would any man, after reading this docum nt, imagine 
that there were any presbyters of the bishop who w re 
not assembled ? or that there were any assembled who 
had not signed the instrument ? Let it be supposed 
that the board had been more equally divided in opin- 
ion, and that there had been a majority of only one 
against Mr. Jones ; would it not be a manifest impo- 
sition to say that the assembly was composed of the 
majority only ? Would it not be a glaring perversion 
of the truth, to give to the world an act, sanctioned by 
the majority alone, as the unanimous sentence of the 
whole body? But, as this instrument was formed 
with such deliberation ; as it was so clearly fcneseen 
** that the course of proceeeding then established was 
to be a precedent for future cases under the canon 
why did it not preserve the form which is usual on all 
such occasions ? why did it not particularise those who 
composed the tribunal ? The reason is obvious : it 
would not have answered the purpose ; it would then- 



t 66 ] 



have appeared that Mi. Jones had some venerable and 
respectable friends at the board ; and then this instru- 
ment could not have been sent into the world, as the 
unanimous act of the presbyters of the diocese. The 
lawyers have a maxim that *< a record can tell no lies :" 
I wish Mr. H; vv (who professes to have studied law, 
as well as commerce, military tactics, naval tactics, 
pedagogueism, divinity, &c. &c ike.) would inform us 
whether the m.ixim may be considered as applicable to 
ecclesiastical records. 

" It is a perversion (according to Dr. Hobart to say 
that the decision on Mr. Jones's case is .a punish- 
ment.'' This is nothing short of adding insult to out- 
rage. Put the preposterous assertion in other woids, 
and to what does it amount ? — Mr. Jones has never 
been accused of, never tried for, any offence : accord- 
ing to the old maxim then, ir is to be presumed that 
lie is innocent : but if " the prosperity of the church 
requires" that we take from him an income ol /. 1100 
and reduce him and his family to starve upon /.70 per. 
annum, it is perversion to brand this as a punishment! 
— There is something so shocking in want-. nly sport- 
ing with the sufferings of a man, who is writhing under 
the infliction of unmerited punishment, that 1 shall ever 
hold in detestation the unfeeling monster who can he 
guiity of it. What wowid Dr. H bai t say, were ne to 
be told that the good of the church required him to 
give up his /. 1:00, and to live on L70 per. annum ? 
Wouid he not ask why he should be ;hus made to 
suffer, if he had not merited it ? Would he uott.sk, 
how the good of the chmch can require an innocent 
individual to be abruptly reduced 1' o;r affluence to 
poverty ? Hdd Mr. J ones been left in the enjoyment 
of his salary ; or had provision been made for the fu- 
ture support of himse f ai'd family; and had the pros- 
perity of the church realty equned his removal from 
his late station; then, indeed, might it have beui said 
that the decision on his case was no puni hment : hut, 
ur.der existing circumstances, it i> as cruel as it is ab- 
surd to say, that he is not punished. 



C 67 ] 



With equal sang froid Dr. Hobart endeavours to 
persuade us, that there was nothing like severity in 
requiring Mr. Jones to decide, in the course of one 
morning, on a step which involved the fate of himself 
and his family for life : had he been indulged with the 
favour of a ivhcle day for deliberation, some of the 
poor. presbyters would have been detained "a/twg time 
from their parishes !" 

" Thus wretches hang that jurymen may dine !" 

Mr. Jones in his System asserts — that " the next 
day (after the decision on his case) another meeting 
was held, at which Dr. H bart was present, and was 
principal actor : at this meeting notices were prepared 
and sent," Sec. To this asseitio Dr. H. replies — 
" j\o meeting of the clergy was heid the next day : 
n )tices of the sentence of suspension were not sent to 
all the clergy," &c. The object of Mr. Jones's asser- 
tion evidently is, to shew that Dr. H. was the primary 
agent in all this bifsirie'ss, although he moved clandes- 
tinely and under fancied concealment. - Then why not 
meet the charge manfu!l\ ? Why resort to all this 
quibbling and evasion, if the p'ain truth would put h's 
accuser down? But it is, in fact, an abuse of terms to 
call it quibbling and evasion: it is a most shameful, 
gross departure from the truth. It is susceptible of 
positive proof, in any court of justice, should it be ne- 
cessary, that on the day fotlatomg the derision (here 
zvas a meeting of the clergy held at Dr. Bowdm's 
chambers in the college ; and that Dr. Hobart, Mr. 
L\ell and Mr. How were actively employed, on that 
occasion, in writing, sealing, and dispatching notices. 
I am able to give the names of the clergy uho Were 
present, as well as a detail of their proceedings, fr .m 
the testimony of one who was an eye witness. What 
credit then is due to the man ho peremptorily denies, 
that any meeting of the ele gy was held on that day ? 
Will it be said that the denial amounts to nothing more 
than prevarication ? Be it so : 

" But be those jugglipg friends no more believed 
" Who palter witb us in a double sense l" 

SHAKES?. 



t 68 ] 



I shall request the reader's attention to only one ob- 
servation more, which will be on the subject of canon 
1st of Presentments. 

Unless lam greatly mistaken, Mr. Jones's construc- 
tion of this canon is perfectly correct : and Mr. Hobart 
either is most egregiously deceived, or he attempts a 
m >st gross imposition, when he ?ays— that Mr. Jones 
might have brought his complaints before an ecclesias- 
tical tribunal, through the medium of the convention, 
or of the vestry of Trinity church, or of three or more 
presbyters. This I deny : nor can I persuade myself 
that such a construction of the canon can be justified, 
by either the language or the spirit of it. Conscious, 
however, that mtfch stress is laid upon it by D> . H. and 
his partizans, I will ende. vour to subvert his position. 
The plain phraseology of the canon seems to me to 
imply — that the convention, if they have any cause of 
complaint against a clergyman, may present him to the 
bishop ; that any vestry are entitled to a similar privi- 
lege; but that an individual clergyman has only me 
way of proceeding against another clergyman, viz. by 
calling on three or more presbyters to unite in present- 
ing him : and that if he cannot obtain the compliance 
of that number, his complaint is remediless. This 
interpretation of the canon is sanctioned by the judg- 
ment of several members of that convention by which 
it was enacted. But let us take Dr. Hobart's ingeni- 
ous construction, and apply it to the case of Mr. Jones. 
Let it be supposed (although it is not the fact) that he 
was desiious of arraigning Dr. H. before a regular 
ecclesiastical tribunal, under the authority of this canon. 
It is said that, in such a case, he ought to have applied 
to the vestry of Trinity church to present Dr. Hobart. 
In the event of such an application, must not the ves- 
try have tried the cause before they engaged in pre- 
senting the accused? For it is to be presumed that no 
vestry would present a clergyman, on the mere com- 
plaint of another, without first investigating the sub- 
ject : othe» w ; se tht y would be guilty of a most sense- 
less procedure. To say nothing of the impropriety of 



C 69 ] 



trying a man twice for one offence, docs there exist a 
solitary individual who can persuade himseif, that Mr. 
Jones could, under existing circumstances, have pre- 
vailed on the vestry of Trinity church to present Dr. 
H -bai t ? It will h wever be contended that Mr lories 
might h ve had recourse to the convention. But must 
not the convention also, btfore they consented to pre- 
sent, have examined and determined on the merits of the 
application ? And even if their consent had been ob- 
tained, of whom is the convention composed ? Of the 
presbyters of the diocese. And to whom were they to 
present? To the presbyters of the diocese. Such a 
construction then of the canon, as Dr. Hobart gives to 
it, would make the presbyters presenters to themselves; 
would make them in the first instance, accusers; and 
in the second, judges. But, after all, this is begging 
the question : for there is no man in the diocese so ig- 
norant as not to know, that Mr. J. could not, by any 
possible exertions, under the then existing circumstan- 
ces, have prevailed on the convention to present the 
man, whom (admitting the supposition J he wished to 
criminate. Whatever therefore may be the meaning 
of the canon, Mr. J. had not a choice of alternatives : 
in vain would he have applied to the vestry of Trinity 
church ; in vain would he have applied to the conven- 
tion; he was reduced to the necessity (had he been 
disposed to present Dr. Hobart) of resorting to the in- 
terference of three or more presbyters. " Now, it was 
impossible for him (as he states) under existing cir- 
cumstances, to obtain any three clergymen to engage 
in such an office." 

I shall not undertake to prove* (for there is not an 

* Were I disposed to engage seriously in such an undertaking-, I could 
bring an hundred facts to bear on the point Among others 1 am able to 
prove, that shortly after the meeting of the vestry on the 13th May last, 
(at which time was adopted the report, disapproving of the publication of 
Mr. Jones's Solemn Appeal) Dr. Hobart called on one of the members of 
that body, and in a very angry manner reproached him with the conduct of 
the vestry. He observed that they had not gone half far enough in adopt- 
ing that report ; and insisted, in a style of absolute dictation, that they 
must follow it up with more effective measures. And yet, since the adop- 
tion of that report by tho yegtry, whenever Dr. H. ha* been entreated by 



C 70 ] 



individual living who can doubt the fact) that Br. 
H. was the instigator, the ma.n spring, 01 all the late, 
violences commitsed against M . Jr nes. The motive 
that prompted to tho e outr, ,g s is self-apparent: their 
&uih'.n never forgives an injury ; mu>;b le>s can he par- 
don the man who has p. nlv attempt d to pi event his 
elevation, and who in the attempt '.as exposed some 
instances of his unfnne s for a mitre. therefore 
persecutes him with relentless malice; and will con- 
tinue to persecute him, until the weap< ns of destruc- 
tion are wrested fiom his gra p. Conscious that the 
eyes of the public are opened to his demerits, he ait- 
fully contrives to raise a cl< ud of smoke, in the hope 
of escaping from the general gaze. Every page (;f his 
weekly pamphlets teems with the comparative.} 7 venial 
faults of Mr. Jones, which are blazoned abroad as 
crimes of the darkest hue, in the expectation that real 
turpitude will be overlooked in the exhibition of ima- 
ginary guiit. This is the artifice of the wily pick- 
pocket; who joins in the hue and cry, and by vocife- 
rous repetitions of Stop thief" diverts the attention 
of the pursuers from the actual cu!] r it. But these 
impositions cannot fail to be dcte. ted at last: and al- 
ready has the indignation of the public been rouzed to 
measures, which evince that intoleiance, violence, 
cruelty, persecution, and tyianny, aie not natives of 
our country's soil ; and that every ai tempt to indige- 
nize them, either in church or state, will be che> ked 
by the frovuis of a discerning pe pie. 

For some time past our h iiz n has exhibited only 
clouds and thick darkness, even cia;kness that has been 
severely felt : but my fancy anticipates a brightei day, 
when the present unwholesome vapours w ill all be dis- 
sipated, and the cheering sun onte more ari.e with 

the friends of Mr. Jones to consent to terms of reconciliation, he has inva- 
riably excused himself by saying — that it was no longer an affair between 
him ard Mr Jones ; that it was in ti e hands of the vestry; and that it 
would be indelicacy in him to interfere. Indelicacy to interfere in effec- 
ting- a reconciliation with a brother! But there was no indelicacy, it 
seems, in exerting his influence over the vestry to accomplish that broth- 
er's destruction ! 



C 71 ] 



healing in his wings; when the reins of administra- 
tion w ill be resumed by a veteran of tried merit, ster- 
ling integrity, inflexible justice, undeviating equity ; 
when every man, woman and child wilt unite to wel- 
come his return ; when the ephemeral pei turbators of 
the church will be driven hence in disgrace, and their 
places filled by others who will practise, as well as 
preach, the duty of loving as biethten. 



-J 



